This is a modern-English version of The Teaching of Epictetus: Being the 'Encheiridion of Epictetus,' with Selections from the 'Dissertations' and 'Fragments', 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.


THE TEACHING OF EPICTETUS:
BEING THE ‘ENCHEIRIDION
OF EPICTETUS,’ WITH SELECTIONS
FROM THE ‘DISSERTATIONS’
AND ‘FRAGMENTS.’

The name Epictetus is pronounced ep’’ik-ti’tus—e as in get, first i as in habit, second i as in police, u as in but.

The name Epictetus is pronounced ep’’ik-ti’tus—e as in get, first i as in habit, second i as in police, u as in but.



TRANSLATED FROM THE GREEK,
WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES, BY

T. W. ROLLESTON.

NEW YORK
HOME BOOK COMPANY,
45 VESEY STREET.

INTRODUCTION.

But for the zeal and ability of one disciple we should not now possess any trustworthy account of the teaching of Epictetus. For, like not a few other sages, he wrote nothing—his teaching was purely oral, delivered, in the form of lectures or discourses, to the students who came to him to receive their education in philosophy. One of these students was Flavius Arrianus, afterwards Senator and Consul of Rome, named by Lucian “one among the first of Roman men,” and known to us chiefly as author of the best history of Alexander the Great which was produced in antiquity. That history is still extant, but posterity owes Arrian still more abundant thanks for the copious notes of the teaching of Epictetus which he took down from his master’s lips in Nicopolis. This record he afterwards published in eight books (whereof only four now remain), entitled the Dissertations of Epictetus; and out of these he drew the materials for compiling the little work, the Encheiridion, or Manual, of Epictetus, by which this philosopher has hitherto been most generally known.1

But if it weren't for the passion and skill of one student, we wouldn’t have a reliable account of Epictetus's teachings today. Like many other wise figures, he wrote nothing—his teachings were shared orally, presented as lectures or discussions to the students who came to learn philosophy from him. One of these students was Flavius Arrianus, who later became a Senator and Consul of Rome, referred to by Lucian as “one of the foremost Roman men,” and best known to us as the author of the most acclaimed history of Alexander the Great from ancient times. That history still exists, but future generations owe even greater gratitude to Arrian for the detailed notes of Epictetus's teachings that he recorded from his master in Nicopolis. He later published these notes in eight books (only four of which survive), titled the Dissertations of Epictetus; and from these, he created the brief work known as the Encheiridion, or Manual, of Epictetus, which is how this philosopher is most widely recognized now.1

It is clear that the Dissertations were not regarded by Arrian as a satisfactory representation of the teaching of his master; that he published them, indeed, with much reluctance, and only when it appeared that unless he did so, certain imperfect versions of his records would be established as the sole sources of authoritative information about Epictetus. These circumstances are explained in a dedicatory letter to his friend Lucius Gellius, prefixed to the edition of the Dissertations which Arrian finally resolved to issue. I here translate this document in full:—

It’s clear that Arrian didn’t see the Dissertations as a proper representation of his master’s teachings; he published them with a lot of hesitation, and only because it seemed like if he didn’t, some flawed versions of his notes would become the only authoritative sources about Epictetus. He explains these circumstances in a letter to his friend Lucius Gellius, which he included at the beginning of the edition of the Dissertations that he eventually decided to publish. Here’s the full translation of that document:—

“Arrian to Lucius Gellius, hail.

"Arrian to Lucius Gellius, greetings."

“I did not write [in literary form and composition, συγγράφειν] the words of Epictetus in the manner in which a man might write such things. Neither have I put them forth among men, since, as I say, I did not even write them. But whatever I heard him speak, those things I endeavored to set down in his very words, so to preserve to myself for future times a memorial of his thought and unstudied speech. Naturally, therefore, they are such things as one man might say to another on the occasion of the moment, not such as he would put together with the idea of finding readers long afterwards. Such they are, and I know not how without my will or knowledge they fell among men. But to me it is no great 7 matter if I shall appear unequal to composing such a work, and to Epictetus none at all if any one shall despise his discourse; for when he spoke it, it was evident that he had but one aim—to stir the minds of his hearers towards the best things. And if, indeed, the words here written should do the same, then they will do, I think, that which the words of sages ought to do. But if not, yet let those who read them know this, that when he himself spoke them, it was impossible for the hearer to avoid feeling whatever Epictetus desired he should feel. But if his words, when they are merely words, have not this effect, perhaps it is that I am in fault, perhaps it could not have been otherwise. Farewell!”

“I didn't write down the words of Epictetus in a formal literary style. I haven't shared them with others because, as I mentioned, I didn't even write them. But I tried to capture exactly what he said to keep a record of his thoughts and natural speech for the future. So, they're just the kinds of things one person might say to another in the moment, not something crafted to attract readers later on. That's how they are, and I don’t know how, without my intention or awareness, they ended up being shared. It doesn’t really matter to me if I seem unqualified to create such a work, and it means nothing to Epictetus if anyone looks down on his words; when he spoke, it was clear he only wanted to inspire his listeners to pursue the best things. If these written words achieve that, they will fulfill what words from wise people should do. If they don’t, let those who read this understand that when he spoke, it was impossible not to feel what Epictetus wanted them to feel. If his words, when just words, don’t have that impact, maybe it’s my fault, or maybe it just couldn’t be any other way. Farewell!”

The style of the Dissertations, as they have reached us, answers very well to the above account of their origin and purpose. They contain much that the world should be as little willing to neglect as anything that Greek philosophy has left us; but they contain also many repetitions, redundancies, incoherencies; and are absolutely devoid of any sort of order or system in their arrangement. Each chapter has generally something of a central theme, but beyond this all is chaos. The same theme will be dwelt on again and again in almost the same phrases; utterances of majestic wisdom are imbedded in pages of tedious argument, 8 and any grouping of the chapters according to a progressive sequence of ideas will be looked for in vain.

The style of the Dissertations, as we have them, aligns well with the earlier description of their origin and purpose. They contain a lot that the world shouldn’t overlook as much as anything from Greek philosophy; however, they also have plenty of repetitions, redundancies, and inconsistencies, and lack any sort of order or system in how they’re arranged. Each chapter usually has a central theme, but apart from that, everything is chaotic. The same theme is often repeated in nearly identical phrases; insights of great wisdom are mixed in with pages of dull arguments, 8 and trying to organize the chapters in a logical order of ideas will lead to disappointment.

Under these conditions it was evident that the teaching of Epictetus could never win half the influence which its essential qualities fitted it to exercise. And accordingly, as another and better vehicle for this influence, Arrian compiled and condensed from the Dissertations the small handbook of the Stoic philosophy known as the Encheiridion of Epictetus. This little work has made Epictetus known to very many whom the Dissertations would never have reached. It had the distinction—unparalleled in the case of any other Pagan writing, if we except the doubtful Sententiæ of Xystus—of being adopted as a religious work in the early Christian Church. Two paraphrases of it—still extant—one of which was specially designed for the use of monastic bodies, were produced about the sixth century a. d., in which very few changes were made in the text, beyond the alteration of Pagan names and allusions to Scriptural ones.

Under these conditions, it was clear that Epictetus’s teachings could never gain the influence that their essential qualities deserved. Therefore, as a better way to share this influence, Arrian compiled and condensed the Dissertations into the small handbook of Stoic philosophy known as the Encheiridion of Epictetus. This little work has introduced Epictetus to many people who would never have encountered the Dissertations. It had the unique distinction—unmatched by any other pagan writing, except perhaps the questionable Sententiæ of Xystus—of being embraced as a religious text in the early Christian Church. Two paraphrases of it still exist, one of which was specifically created for monastic communities, produced around the sixth century a. d., in which very few changes were made to the text, apart from replacing pagan names and references with scriptural ones.

About the same time it was made the subject of an elaborate and lengthy commentary by a Pagan writer, Simplicius, wherein chapter after chapter is dissected, discussed, and explained. It was elegantly rendered into Latin by the well-known scholar of the Renaissance, Angelo Politian, who dedicated his translation to Lorenzo de’ Medici. Down 9 to the present day, as numerous translations testify, it has remained the most usual means of access to the thought of Epictetus.

About the same time, it was the subject of an in-depth and lengthy commentary by a Pagan writer, Simplicius, where each chapter is examined, discussed, and explained. It was skillfully translated into Latin by the famous Renaissance scholar, Angelo Politian, who dedicated his translation to Lorenzo de’ Medici. Down 9 to this day, as many translations show, it has continued to be the most common way to access Epictetus's thoughts.

But inestimable as the Encheiridion is, he who knows it alone has gained nothing like all that Epictetus has to give. It is a compendium; and although much more stirring and forcible than is usual with such works, it cannot give us the wealth of interesting allusion, reflection, humor, the bursts of eloquence, the abrupt and biting style, the vivid revelations of personal feeling, which marked the teaching of Epictetus in the form in which he delivered it. It seems, therefore, that to make him as accessible as he can be to those for whom such things have any value or interest, it were necessary to produce from the Encheiridion and the Dissertations a third work, which should have the advantages of each. This is what I have endeavored to do in the present work. In it the whole of the Encheiridion is given, and the divisions of subject-matter into which the Encheiridion falls have been observed by the division of my translation into five Books, corresponding with the natural divisions of the Encheiridion—Book I., treating of the first principles of the Stoic philosophy; Book II., dealing with the general application of these principles to life; Book III., with man’s relations to his fellow-man; Book IV., with his relations to God; Book V., containing, besides a couple of concluding 10 chapters, chiefly practical counsels of behavior on various particular occasions, and obiter dicta on the use of the faculties. Such is the scheme of arrangement suggested by the Encheiridion; and I have filled it in by setting among the chapters of the Encheiridion chapters or passages from the Dissertations, selected for their relevancy to the matter in hand. In fact, I have reversed the process by which the Encheiridion came into being. It was condensed out of the Dissertations: I have expanded it again by drawing into it a large quantity of material from the original work, and subjecting the new matter thus gained to the system and order of sequence which I found to prevail in the Encheiridion. The passages or chapters taken from the Dissertations are those which seemed to me most characteristic of the philosophy or the personality of Epictetus, and I have made it my aim to omit nothing which is essential to a full and clear understanding of the message he had to deliver to his generation. Of course there is plenty of room for differences of opinion as to the manner in which this conception has been here carried out; but I hope that the present attempt may do something to win a larger audience for his teaching than former editions could, in the nature of the case, obtain. If this hope should prove to be well founded, I shall expect, some day, to give the present English version a counterpart 11 in a Greek text arranged on the same lines.

But as valuable as the Encheiridion is, just knowing it alone doesn’t compare to what Epictetus has to offer. It's a summary; and while it’s much more engaging and impactful than typical works like it, it can't provide the richness of interesting references, reflections, humor, the bursts of eloquence, the sharp and biting style, and the vivid expressions of personal feelings that characterized Epictetus's teachings in their original form. Therefore, to make his work as accessible as possible to those who find value or interest in it, it’s necessary to create a third work from the Encheiridion and the Dissertations, which would combine the benefits of both. That’s what I've aimed to do in this current work. In it, the entire Encheiridion is included, and the different topics it covers are divided into five Books, corresponding to the natural divisions of the Encheiridion: Book I, which discusses the fundamental principles of Stoic philosophy; Book II, which applies these principles to life; Book III, about man's relationships to others; Book IV, covering his relationships to God; and Book V, which, in addition to a couple of final chapters, mainly offers practical advice for various situations, as well as obiter dicta on using our faculties. This is the organizing plan suggested by the Encheiridion; I've filled it in by adding relevant chapters or passages from the Dissertations amongst the Encheiridion chapters. In fact, I've inverted the process through which the Encheiridion was created. It was distilled from the Dissertations: I’ve expanded it by incorporating a large amount of material from the original work and arranged the new content to follow the system and flow found in the Encheiridion. The sections taken from the Dissertations are those I found most representative of either Epictetus’s philosophy or personality, and I've made it a point to exclude nothing essential for a full and clear understanding of his message to his time. Of course, there’s plenty of room for differing opinions on how this concept has been executed here; however, I hope that this attempt may help introduce his teachings to a wider audience than previous editions could realistically achieve. If this hope proves true, I expect, at some point, to provide this English version with a corresponding Greek text arranged in the same way.

I may add here that the reader will find an Index at the end of this volume, in which every paragraph is referred to its original source in the Dissertations, Encheiridion, or Fragments—the references applying to Schweighäuser’s standard edition of Epictetus.2

I should mention that there's an index at the end of this book, which lists every paragraph and its original source in the Dissertations, Encheiridion, or Fragments—the references are based on Schweighäuser’s standard edition of Epictetus.2

As regards the style of my translation, I hope the tinge of archaism I have given it will be felt to suit the matter. I could think of no idiom so varied, so flexible even down to its use of various grammatical forms, so well suited alike to colloquy, or argument, or satire, or impassioned eloquence, as Elizabethan English.

As for the style of my translation, I hope the touch of old-fashioned language I've added feels appropriate for the content. I couldn't think of any language that is as diverse, as adaptable—even in its different grammatical forms—as Elizabethan English, which works well for conversation, debate, satire, or passionate speech.

So much to make the plan of the present work understood; and the reader may perhaps wish that I would now leave him to the study of it. But there is much in Epictetus 12 the significance of which will not appear to any one who is unacquainted with the general system of Stoic philosophy which formed the basis of Epictetus’s ethical teaching. And I hope that the reader will prefer to have such information as is necessary given him in the form of a general introduction rather than in that of a multitude of notes.

So much to make the plan of the present work understood; and the reader might want me to leave him to study it now. But there’s a lot in Epictetus 12 that won’t make sense to anyone who doesn’t know the basics of Stoic philosophy, which is the foundation of Epictetus's ethical teachings. I hope the reader would prefer to get the necessary information as a general introduction instead of through a bunch of notes.

The founder of the Stoic philosophy was Zeno, a native of Cyprus, who taught in Athens, about 300 b. c., in that frescoed arcade, or Stoa, which gave its name to his school. His birthplace is worth noting, for Zeno lived at the beginning of that epoch, himself one of the first products of it, in which the influence of the East became strongly apparent in Greek thought; the period called Hellenistic in contradistinction to the purely Hellenic period which ended in the conquests of the Macedonians. In many ways the conditions of life in the Hellenistic period formed the most favorable milieu possible for the development of Greek thought upon the only lines which, after Aristotle, it could fruitfully pursue; and this not in spite of, but even because of, the great degradation of political and social life from which all Hellendom then suffered. What the democratic polities were like, on which was laid the problem of confronting Philip of Macedon, we may conjecture from the history of the best known and assuredly 13 not the worst of them, Athens. And the best type of Athenian whose rise to power was favored by the conditions of this time and place was Demosthenes: Demosthenes, the grand historical warning to all peoples against committing their destinies to professional orators; the statesman whose doubtless real veneration for his country and her past served only to make him a more mischievous counselor in her present difficulties; whose splendid power as a wielder of words was scarcely more signal than his incapacity and cowardice when he was called upon to match those words with deeds. Athens, entangling the Thebans in an alliance against Macedon, and then leaving them to face Alexander alone; deifying Demetrius the Besieger for driving out a Macedonian garrison, and allotting him the Parthenon itself to be his lodging and the scene of his unspeakable profligacies; murdering Phocion, the one man who dared to bring sincerity and virtue to her service—Athens was a type of the Greek States of this epoch: too unprincipled for democratic government, too contentious for despotism, too vain to submit to foreign rule, too lacking in valor, purpose, union, to resist it with effect.

The founder of Stoic philosophy was Zeno, a native of Cyprus, who taught in Athens around 300 B.C. in that frescoed arcade, or Stoa, which gave his school its name. His birthplace is significant because Zeno lived at the start of a time when Eastern influences were becoming very clear in Greek thought; this period is called Hellenistic, in contrast to the purely Hellenic period, which ended with the conquests of the Macedonians. In many ways, the living conditions during the Hellenistic period created the most favorable environment for the development of Greek thought along the only paths that could yield fruitful results after Aristotle; and this occurred not in spite of but because of the decline in political and social life that all of Hellas was then experiencing. We can guess what the democratic governments were like that confronted Philip of Macedon by looking at the history of the most well-known, and certainly not the worst, of them—Athens. The best example of an Athenian who rose to power due to the conditions of this time and place was Demosthenes: Demosthenes, the great historical warning to all nations against entrusting their futures to professional orators; the statesman whose genuine respect for his country and its past only made him a more harmful advisor in her current struggles; whose remarkable gift with words was hardly more impressive than his inability and cowardice when it came time to back those words up with actions. Athens, which pulled the Thebans into an alliance against Macedon and then abandoned them to face Alexander alone; worshipping Demetrius the Besieger for driving out a Macedonian garrison, granting him the Parthenon itself for his residence and the backdrop for his outrageous excesses; executing Phocion, the one man who dared to bring honesty and virtue to her service—Athens represented the Greek states of this era: too unscrupulous for democratic governance, too quarrelsome for despotism, too arrogant to accept foreign rule, and too lacking in courage, purpose, and unity to effectively resist it.

Whatever the causes of the change may have been, the conditions of public life in this Hellenistic period were certainly very different from those which prevailed, albeit 14 with decadence, before that vast breaking up of boundaries and destruction of political systems involved in the Macedonian conquests. The successful and inspiring conflict with Persia waged by the Hellenic States had for a time made all Greek hearts to beat with one aspiration, and had brought to the front a race of leaders who were capable of subduing the Greek democracies to their own steadfast and statesmanlike purposes. Public life was then not only a possible but even the most natural career for a man of talent and probity. The small size of the Greek States gave almost every such man an opportunity of action, and so keen and universal was the interest in politics that it threatened to lead Greek philosophy into a region in which philosophy is very apt to lose its vitalizing connection with human consciousness and experience, and to stiffen into barren speculation. In a word, man, as an individual, began to be too much lost sight of in the consideration of man as a citizen; his uses, his duties, the whole worth and significance of his life, came to be estimated too exclusively by his relations to the visible society about him. It was when the great Stoic Chrysippus found himself obliged to stand aloof from all participation in politics—“For if I counsel honorably I shall offend the citizens, and if basely, the Gods”—that such men as he were led to ask themselves: Is there then any sphere 15 of human endeavor out of the reach of the tyranny of circumstance? If I cannot be a citizen, what am I worth then simply as a man? If I can be nothing to my fellows, what can I be to God? To a state of things, then, which, speaking broadly, made public life impossible to honest men, we owe the noblest ethical system of antiquity; to the enforced concentration of thought upon the individual we owe a certain note of universality till then absent from Hellenic thought.

Whatever the reasons for the change, public life during this Hellenistic period was definitely very different from the earlier times, which, despite some decadence, were dominated by the political systems before the massive restructuring and chaos caused by the Macedonian conquests. The successful and inspiring battle against Persia fought by the Greek States had temporarily united all Greeks in a common goal and brought forth a group of leaders capable of bending the Greek democracies to their solid and statesmanlike purposes. At that time, public life was not just a possibility but the most natural path for a talented and principled man. The small size of the Greek States gave almost every man like that a chance to take action, and the interest in politics was so intense and widespread that it risked pushing Greek philosophy into a realm where it tends to lose its vital connection with human consciousness and experience, becoming rigid and speculative. In short, the individual man began to be overshadowed by the concept of man as a citizen; his value, responsibilities, and significance were increasingly judged based on his connections to the visible society around him. It was when the great Stoic Chrysippus found himself forced to withdraw from political engagement—"For if I advise honorably, I will offend the citizens, and if dishonorably, the Gods"—that thinkers like him began to question: Is there any area of human effort that escapes the tyranny of circumstance? If I cannot be a citizen, what am I worth just as a human being? If I mean nothing to my fellow people, what can I mean to God? Thus, to a situation that broadly made public life impossible for honest men, we owe the noblest ethical system of antiquity; to the forced focus on the individual, we owe a note of universality that had previously been absent from Hellenic thought.

But stoicism was not the only product of the speculation of this period. Side by side with it there started into being two other systems of philosophy, the necessity for combating which was doubtless of immense service to its development. These were Epicureanism and Pyrrhonism; and as the reader will find Epictetus much concerned with each of them, it may be desirable that I should give some brief account of their cardinal doctrines.

But stoicism wasn't the only outcome of the ideas from this period. Alongside it, two other philosophical systems emerged, and the need to address them was certainly crucial for its growth. These were Epicureanism and Pyrrhonism; and as you'll see, Epictetus was quite focused on both, so it might be helpful for me to provide a brief overview of their key teachings.

Epicurus was an Athenian. After some residence in Lesbos and Lampsacus, he began to teach in his native city about the year 306 B.C. His ethical views, which are all that concern us here, were of a distinctly unelevating nature. Pleasure, ἡδονή, was pronounced to be for each man the end and aim of his being, and the only rational motive of action. This, however, was not the pleasure of the voluptuary—its highest forms, according to Epicurus, were gained in ἀταραξία 16 and ἀπονία—that is, a cheerful and unanxious temperament, with leisure for contemplation, ends not attainable by the criminal who lives in constant fear of detection, or the luxurious liver in whom satiety produces disgust and weariness.

Epicurus was from Athens. After spending some time in Lesbos and Lampsacus, he started teaching in his hometown around 306 B.C. His ethical views, which are what matter here, had a notably unrefined character. Pleasure, ἡδονή, was declared to be the ultimate goal and purpose of each person's life and the only logical reason for taking action. However, this wasn't the pleasure of a hedonist—its highest forms, according to Epicurus, were found in ἀταραξία and ἀπονία—that is, a joyful and worry-free mindset, with time for reflection, which cannot be achieved by someone who lives in constant fear of getting caught or by someone who indulges in excess, where overindulgence leads to disgust and fatigue. 16

Certain bodily conditions were, however, regarded as objects in themselves, and partaking of the nature of the absolutely good; and all entanglement in human relationships was discountenanced for the disturbance and distress which such relationships were liable to cause. These doctrines were put in practice by their teacher in inuring himself to a hermit-like simplicity and abstemiousness of life; and his life was philosophically consistent with his doctrines, for it is clear that the end of Pleasure will be most surely gained by him who has fewest wants to gratify. But though the lives of Epicurus and his immediate followers were exceptionally sober and strict, the total effect of his doctrine could not but have been evil. They were purely egoistic in this tendency—they centered each man’s activity and interest upon himself alone, they bade him take no thought for any other earthly or heavenly thing, and taught him that this ideal of indifference was realized in its full perfection by the Gods, who dwelt apart in divine repose while blind necessity had its way with human destiny.

Certain physical conditions were seen as valuable in themselves, embodying what is absolutely good; all involvement in human relationships was discouraged due to the stress and distress such connections could cause. These beliefs were practiced by their teacher, who trained himself to live a simple, ascetic life. His lifestyle matched his teachings, as it’s clear that the pursuit of pleasure is best achieved by those with the fewest desires to satisfy. However, despite Epicurus and his close followers leading exceptionally disciplined lives, the overall impact of his teachings was undoubtedly harmful. They were purely self-centered—focusing each person’s actions and interests solely on themselves, advising them to disregard any concerns for other earthly or heavenly matters, and teaching that this ideal of indifference was perfectly embodied by the gods, who existed in divine tranquility while blind fate determined human destinies.

Pyrrho of Elis, a rather earlier teacher 17 than Zeno or Epicurus, who is said to have studied philosophy under Indian Gymnosophists and Chaldean Magi, was the originator in European thought of a great and permanent philosophic movement. His school was inspired by the Geist der stets verneint, and the term Skeptic was first devised to describe its attitude. Its strength is in a discovery which inevitably takes place when men begin to reflect upon their own mental operations—the discovery, namely, that, given a perceiving mind and a perceived object, it is always possible for the former, if it has the power of introspection, to doubt whether it has received a really true and faithful impression of the latter. How can we be assured that external objects are as we perceive them? How can we even be assured that there is any principle of constancy in their relations to our consciousness? The senses often delude us; we are convinced, in dreams, of the reality of appearances which, nevertheless, have no reality—-why may not all perception be a delusion? Why may not even our sense of the validity of inference and of the truth of the axioms of geometry be a pure hallucination? With these searching questions the Skeptic cut at the root of all belief, and the problems which they raise have dominated philosophy down to the present day. Nor in two thousand years has any logical answer to them ever been found. Lotze, the last thinker of really 18 first-rate powers that the world has seen, practically abandons all inquiry into theories of perception, and starts with the assumption that we are living in a kosmos, not a chaos; that the order, coherence, reason in things to which consciousness testifies, are realities. In antiquity, I may add, the profound problems raised by Pyrrhonism do not seem to have been very profoundly apprehended either by the Pyrrhonists or their opponents. The latter had nothing better to appeal to than that notoriously feeble resource, the argumentum ad hominem. If the Pyrrhonist distrusted the evidence of his senses, they asked, why did he avoid walking over precipices or into the sea, or eat bread instead of earth, or in any way make choice of means for ends? The Pyrrhonist’s answer was equally superficial. It anticipated the famous formula of Bishop Butler. Probability, argued they, was the guide of life—having observed certain results to follow from certain antecedents, the prudent man will shape his course in life accordingly, although, as a matter of theory and speculation, he may refuse to believe in the constancy of nature. This answer involves a clear inconsistency. It involves even a greater assumption than that which the Pyrrhonist refused to make as to the credibility of his perceptions—the assumption of the credibility of his recollections. To the thorough-going Skeptic there is no such thing as past 19 experience—he is, as it were, new-born at each instant of his life.

Pyrrho of Elis, an earlier teacher 17 than Zeno or Epicurus, is said to have studied philosophy under Indian Gymnosophists and Chaldean Magi. He initiated a significant and lasting philosophical movement in European thought. His school was inspired by the Geist der stets verneint, and the term Skeptic was first created to describe its approach. Its strength lies in a realization that tends to emerge when people start to reflect on their own thinking processes—the realization that, with a perceiving mind and a perceived object, it’s always possible for the former, if it can introspect, to question whether it has received a truly accurate impression of the latter. How can we be sure that external objects are as we perceive them? How can we even be sure that there’s a principle of consistency in their relationships to our consciousness? Our senses often mislead us; in dreams, we’re convinced of the reality of experiences that have no actual existence—why couldn't all perception be a deception? Why couldn’t even our belief in the validity of inference and the truth of mathematical principles be a complete hallucination? With these probing questions, the Skeptic challenged the foundation of all belief, and the issues they raised have influenced philosophy up to this day. In two thousand years, no logical answer has ever been found. Lotze, the last thinker of truly first-rate ability that the world has known, essentially gives up all exploration into theories of perception and begins with the assumption that we live in a cosmos, not chaos; that the order, coherence, and reason in things that consciousness reveals are real. Additionally, in ancient times, the deep issues raised by Pyrrhonism didn’t seem to be tremendously understood by either the Pyrrhonists or their opponents. The latter had nothing better to resort to than the notoriously weak tactic, the argumentum ad hominem. If the Pyrrhonist doubted the evidence of his senses, they asked, why did he avoid walking off cliffs or into the sea, or choose to eat bread instead of dirt, or make decisions for practical purposes? The Pyrrhonist's response was equally shallow. It anticipated Bishop Butler's famous statement. They argued that probability was the guide of life—having observed certain results from certain causes, a wise person will adjust their life accordingly, even though, in theory and speculation, they might refuse to believe in the consistency of nature. This response entails a clear inconsistency. It involves an even greater assumption than that which the Pyrrhonist refused to accept regarding the reliability of his perceptions—the assumption of the reliability of his memories. For the thorough-going Skeptic, there is no such thing as past experience—he is, in a sense, reborn at every moment of his life. 19

Such, in outline, were the systems against which the Stoic philosophy had to make good its position in the ancient world. From the first there seems to have been no doubt of its ability to do so, although, unhappily, the records which have been preserved of the teaching of its earliest days are few and obscure. The writings of Zeno, the founder of Stoicism, and of Chrysippus, his immediate successor in the leadership of the school, have utterly perished, while of Cleanthes, the third of the early Stoic teachers, very little remains beyond the profound and majestic Hymn to Zeus, of which I have given a translation in this work. The complete loss of the hundreds of treatises produced by Chrysippus is especially to be regretted, as he appears to have taken the main part in giving shape and system to the Stoic philosophy. “Had Chrysippus not been, the Stoa had not been,” was a proverbial saying which testifies to his fame. However, from the accounts of ancient philosophers in Diogenes Laertius, from Plutarch, Seneca, Cicero, and a few other authorities, we can learn pretty clearly what the framework of the Stoic system had grown to be long before Epictetus began to study it.

Here's a brief overview of the systems that Stoic philosophy had to contend with in the ancient world. From the beginning, there seems to have been no doubt about its ability to succeed, although, unfortunately, the records preserved from its earliest days are scarce and unclear. The writings of Zeno, the founder of Stoicism, and Chrysippus, his direct successor, have completely vanished, while only a little remains of Cleanthes, the third early Stoic teacher, aside from the profound and majestic Hymn to Zeus, which I have translated in this work. The total loss of the hundreds of treatises written by Chrysippus is particularly regrettable since he played a major role in shaping and systematizing Stoic philosophy. The saying, “Had Chrysippus not been, the Stoa had not been,” reflects his prominent status. However, from the accounts of ancient philosophers like Diogenes Laertius, Plutarch, Seneca, Cicero, and a few others, we can clearly understand what the structure of the Stoic system had developed into long before Epictetus started studying it.

In antiquity, a philosophic system was expected to have something to say for itself on three different branches of study—Logic, 20 Physics (which included cosmogony and theology), and Ethics. We think of the Stoics chiefly in connection with the last-named of these subjects, but they were no less eminent in the others, and Chrysippus, in particular, was held to have done so much for the science of logic that a saying was current—“If there were dialectic among the Gods, it must be the dialectic of Chrysippus.” Of the Stoic contributions to this science, scarcely any record remains.

In ancient times, a philosophical system was expected to address three main areas of study: Logic, 20 Physics (which included cosmogony and theology), and Ethics. We often associate the Stoics primarily with Ethics, but they were also highly regarded in the other areas. Chrysippus, in particular, was considered to have greatly contributed to the field of logic, so much so that it was said, “If the Gods engaged in dialectic, it would be the dialectic of Chrysippus.” Unfortunately, very little record of the Stoics' contributions to this field remains.

Of their physical system, however, much is known, and the reader of Epictetus needs to be acquainted with its general features. These were borrowed from an earlier thinker, Heracleitus, whose central doctrine was that the universe was an eternal flux and transition; everything was in a state of becoming, ein Werdendes. At the beginning of things, so far as they can be said to have any beginning, is the Deity in his purest manifestation, which, be it observed, is a strictly material one, a sublimated and ethereal fire, αἰθερῶδες πῦρ. In this fire dwelt the divine creative thought and impulse. The first step in that process of differentiation in which development consists is the production of vapor, which condensed into water. Two elementary forces play their part in these operations—a movement towards within, and a movement towards without, the one a densifying, the other an expanding and straining force (τόνος). 21 The former gives us solidity in matter, the other the qualities and energies of matter. Thus, by various degrees of density, we get earth, water, atmospheric air, and from air, the common element of earthly fire; and these elements in their various combinations, with their various attributes and powers, gradually produce the successive stages of organic life. Though all these proceed from the substance of the Divine Being, the Stoics recognized, in the derived substance which make up the universe as we have it now, various degrees of purity, of affinity to their original source. Man’s body, for instance, with its passions and affections, lies comparatively far from the divine; but his soul is a veritable ray of the primitive fire, Deus in corpore humano hospitans. The popular mythology of the day was entirely rejected by the Stoics, although, as Professor Mahaffy points out, they never attempted to “discredit orthodoxy,” but, on the contrary, used its myths and ceremonies with the utmost reverence as vehicles of profound religious truths. But they certainly believed in intelligences above man, yet below the one Supreme Being; thus the stars and the lightning (the reader will observe the allusions in the Hymn of Cleanthes) are in some sense divinities, by virtue of the supposed purity of their fiery essence.

Much is known about their physical system, and anyone reading Epictetus should understand its general features. These were taken from an earlier thinker, Heraclitus, whose main idea was that the universe is in constant change and transition; everything is always becoming, ein Werdendes. At the beginning of things, if they can even be said to have a beginning, is the Deity in its purest form, which is strictly material—a refined and ethereal fire, αἰθερῶδες πῦρ. Within this fire resided the divine creative thought and impulse. The first step in the process of differentiation, which constitutes development, is the creation of vapor, which then condenses into water. Two basic forces are involved in these processes—a movement inward and a movement outward; one is a densifying force, while the other is an expanding and stretching force (τόνος). 21 The first gives us solidity in matter, and the second provides the qualities and energies of matter. Through varying degrees of density, we obtain earth, water, atmospheric air, and from air, the common element of earthly fire. These elements, in their various combinations along with their different attributes and powers, gradually create the successive stages of organic life. Although all of this comes from the substance of the Divine Being, the Stoics acknowledged that the derived substances making up the universe as we know it now exhibit various degrees of purity and closeness to their original source. For example, man’s body, with its passions and feelings, is relatively far from the divine; however, his soul is a genuine ray of the original fire, Deus in corpore humano hospitans. The popular mythology of the time was entirely dismissed by the Stoics. Yet, as Professor Mahaffy notes, they never tried to “discredit orthodoxy”; instead, they respected its myths and ceremonies as carriers of deep religious truths. They certainly believed in intelligences above humanity but below the one Supreme Being; thus, the stars and lightning (as referenced in the Hymn of Cleanthes) are seen as divinities because of their supposed pure fiery essence.

Thus from the one primitive divine element the Kosmos, with all its hierarchy of 22 being, is evolved. But in the Stoic system πάντα ῥεῖ,3 there is no continuance in any one condition. As in the normal life of all earthly creatures there comes a certain climax or turning point, after which the forces of decay gain slowly but surely on those of growth and resistance, so also runs the history of the universe which includes them all. One by one the steps by which it was formed shall be retraced, and the derived substances which compose it consumed and re-absorbed by that from which they sprang. From matter in its grossest form to its purest, from earth and stone and water to the highest intelligence in men and dæmons and Gods, nothing shall escape this doom of dissolution; everything shall yield up its separate existence, until at last the indestructible element of that primeval fire is again the sole being that remains, and Zeus is “alone in the conflagration,” self-contemplating in the solitudes of thought. But this is not the end. There is no end. The plastic impulse again resumes its sway, and soon another cycle of world-development and world-destruction begins to run its course. In the language of Seneca, “When that fatal day, that necessity of the times, shall have arrived, and it seems good to God to make an end of old things and 23 ordain the better, then shall the ancient order be revoked and every creature be generated anew, and a race ignorant of guilt be given to the earth.”

Thus, from the one basic divine element, the universe, with all its hierarchy of existence, is formed. But in the Stoic system, everything flows; there is no permanence in any one state. Just like in the normal lives of all earthly creatures, there comes a certain peak or turning point, after which the forces of decay slowly but surely take over from those of growth and resistance. The history of the universe that includes them all runs the same way. One by one, the steps by which it was created will be reviewed, and the substances that make it up will be consumed and reabsorbed by the source from which they came. From matter in its most basic form to its purest, from earth and stone and water to the highest intelligence in humans and spirits and gods, nothing will escape this fate of dissolution; everything will give up its separate existence, until finally, the indestructible element of that primordial fire is the only entity that remains, and Zeus is “alone in the conflagration,” self-reflecting in the solitude of thought. But this is not the end. There is no end. The creative impulse takes hold again, and soon another cycle of world development and destruction begins. As Seneca puts it, “When that fateful day, that necessity of the times, arrives, and it seems right to God to end the old things and establish the new, then the ancient order will be overturned, and every creature will be reborn, and a race unaware of guilt will be given to the earth.”

This was the general physical system on which all Stoics were agreed, although there were differences of opinion upon minor points; such as how far these successive cycles resembled each other? some asserting that they did so in the minutest detail, others only in their larger features. It was a system, for all its superstitions, not without grandeur and truth. At bottom it expressed a sense of that phenomenon of ebb and flow, systole and diastole, the action and counteraction of balanced forces, which is perhaps the profoundest law of life.

This was the general physical system that all Stoics agreed upon, though they had different opinions on minor details, like how closely these successive cycles resembled each other. Some claimed they were identical in the smallest aspects, while others argued they only shared their broader characteristics. Despite its superstitions, the system had a certain grandeur and truth. At its core, it conveyed an understanding of the ebb and flow, the compression and expansion, the action and reaction of balanced forces, which is likely the deepest law of life.

Two questions arise in connection with the Stoic cosmogony, which we must briefly discuss before proceeding farther. Are we justified in terming their view of the universe a materialistic one? and what was their doctrine of the destinies of the human soul? Now it is certainly the usual practice among writers on philosophy to reckon the Stoics as materialists, and it is unquestionably true that they denied the possibility of any existence which was not corporeal. Strong as they are on the supremacy of the human soul over the human body, sharp as is the line with which they divide these elements, yet the distinction is a moral, not a metaphysical one—each is an actual material substance. 24 But we shall be seriously mistaken, nevertheless, if we place them in the same class with the scientific materialists of the present day. According to the latter, Thought is no necessary moment in the universe, but merely a product of certain accidental combinations of matter, a product which, when these are dissolved, must disappear from existence, without leaving a trace of its presence behind. Again, according to most modern opponents of the materialistic view, Thought has an independent and immortal being—it existed before matter was, and would continue to exist if all matter were annihilated. The Stoic view differed from each of these modern theories. It held Thought and Matter to be eternal, inseparable, and, indeed, strictly identical. Being in its primitive and purest form was fire, a corporeal substance, but one exhibiting consciousness, purpose, will.

Two questions come up regarding the Stoic view of the universe that we need to touch on before moving on. Are we justified in calling their perspective materialistic? And what did they believe about the fate of the human soul? It's common for philosophers to categorize the Stoics as materialists, and it's true that they rejected the idea of anything existing that wasn't physical. They emphasized the supremacy of the human soul over the human body and drew a clear line between the two, but this distinction is moral, not metaphysical—both are actual material substances. 24 However, it would be a mistake to group them with today's scientific materialists. These modern thinkers argue that Thought is not a necessary part of the universe but simply a result of random combinations of matter, which, when those combinations break down, ceases to exist without leaving any trace. Conversely, many contemporary critics of materialism maintain that Thought has an independent and immortal existence—it existed before matter and would still exist if all matter were destroyed. The Stoic perspective was different from both of these modern views. They believed that Thought and Matter are eternal, inseparable, and indeed, essentially the same. In its most basic and purest form, Being was fire, a physical substance that also exhibits consciousness, purpose, and will.

As to the question of the Stoic view of the immortality of the human soul, it does not seem to me to deserve so much discussion as it has received from some commentators. It is obvious that the soul must, in the end, share the lot of all other existences, and be resolved into the Divine Being which was its source. The only question that can arise is whether this resolution takes place at the moment of death, or whether the sense of personal identity persists for a certain period beyond that event; and this question, which 25 Epictetus appears to have been wise enough to leave an open one, is philosophically of very little importance. The soul is immortal, the individual perishes; this is the conclusion of Stoicism, and if we know this, there is little else it can much concern us to know.

Regarding the Stoic perspective on the immortality of the human soul, I don't think it warrants as much discussion as some commentators have given it. It's clear that the soul ultimately shares the fate of all other beings and merges back into the Divine Being from which it came. The only real question is whether this merging happens at the moment of death or if a sense of personal identity lingers for a while afterward; and this question, which 25 Epictetus wisely left open, is not very philosophically significant. The soul is immortal, but the individual dies; that's the key takeaway from Stoicism, and if we understand this, there's not much more we need to know.

The reader who desires to gain a thorough knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy, and of the social and political conditions in which it throve, will find what he seeks in two works to which I have to express my large indebtedness. One is Zeller’s Philosophie der Griechen (Epikureer, Stoiker u. Skeptiker),4 a monument of German research and erudition, in which vast masses of original material for the study of this most interesting, but neglected, epoch of the development of European intellect have been brought together, and interpreted with more than German lucidity and method. The other is Professor Mahaffy’s recent volume, Greek Life and Thought, a study of the Hellenistic period in various aspects, which the scholar will not read without profit, nor the lay-reader without pleasure.

The reader who wants to gain a deep understanding of Hellenistic philosophy and the social and political conditions that allowed it to flourish will find what they’re looking for in two works to which I am greatly indebted. One is Zeller’s Philosophie der Griechen (Epikureer, Stoiker u. Skeptiker),4 a significant contribution to German research and scholarship, which brings together a wealth of original material for studying this fascinating but overlooked period in the development of European thought, interpreted with exceptional clarity and method. The other is Professor Mahaffy’s recent book, Greek Life and Thought, a study of the Hellenistic period from various perspectives that both scholars and general readers will find rewarding.

We turn now to that department of the Stoic philosophy with which the reader of Epictetus is most concerned—its Ethics.

We now focus on the part of Stoic philosophy that is most relevant to the reader of Epictetus—its Ethics.

The ethical question resolves itself into 26 a search for the supreme object of human endeavor, the Summum Bonum, the absolute and essential good. This, for the Stoic, embodied itself in the formula, “to live according to Nature.” But what is Nature? The will of God, as revealed in the heart and conscience of those who seek to know it, and interpreted through the observation in a reverent and faithful spirit of the facts of life.

The ethical question becomes a quest for the ultimate goal of human effort, the Summum Bonum, the absolute and essential good. For the Stoics, this was summed up in the idea of “living according to Nature.” But what exactly is Nature? It is the will of God, as understood in the hearts and consciences of those who seek to understand it, and interpreted by observing the facts of life with a respectful and sincere mindset.

Going into the subject more precisely we find certain criteria of moral truth established, προλήψεις, as they were called, that is, primitive, original conceptions, or, as I have rendered them in my translation, “natural conceptions,” dogmas by which all moral questions can be tried. If we inquire into the source of these προλήψεις, we shall find ourselves mistaken in our disposition to think that the Stoics regarded them as innate ideas. Innate they are not, for the Stoics held the soul at birth to be a tabula rasa, or blank page, which only experience could fill with character and meaning. But as Seneca says in his inquiry, “Quomodo ad nos prima boni honestique notitia pervenerit,”5 although Nature alone could not teach us these things, could not equip us with the knowledge of them before we entered upon life, yet the “seeds” of this knowledge she does give us; the soul of every man has 27 implanted in it a certain aptness or, indeed, necessity to deduce certain universal truths from such observation and experience as are common to all mankind; and these truths, the προλήψεις, though not strictly innate, have thus an inevitableness and dogmatic force not possessed by those which one man may reach and another miss in the exercise of the ordinary faculties, by argument, study, and so forth. By these natural conceptions the existence and character of God, and the general decrees of the moral law, are considered to be affirmed. If we inquire further how the Stoic explained the fact that some of these so-called inevitable and universal conclusions are denied in all sincerity by men like Epicurus, who were neither bad nor mad, we strike upon the difficulty which confronts all systems that aim at setting up any absolute body of truth, expressible in human language, in place of that partial, progressive, and infinitely varied revelation of God’s mind and purpose to which the uncolored facts of the world’s religious history seem to testify.

Delving into the topic more precisely, we discover certain criteria for moral truth that were established, called προλήψεις, which are primitive, original ideas, or as I translated them, “natural conceptions.” These are the principles by which all moral questions can be evaluated. If we examine the origin of these προλήψεις, we may be mistaken in thinking that the Stoics believed they were innate ideas. They are not innate, as the Stoics viewed the soul at birth as a tabula rasa, or blank slate, that could only be shaped by experience. However, as Seneca states in his inquiry, “Quomodo ad nos prima boni honestique notitia pervenerit,”5, while Nature alone couldn’t teach us these things or give us this knowledge before we began life, she does provide us with the “seeds” of this knowledge. Every person's soul is naturally inclined or even compelled to derive certain universal truths from the observations and experiences that are common to all humanity. These truths, the προλήψεις, though not strictly innate, possess a compelling and dogmatic quality that differs from those conclusions that one person might reach, while another might overlook, through ordinary reasoning, study, and so on. These natural conceptions affirm the existence and nature of God, as well as the general principles of moral law. If we further investigate how the Stoics explained the fact that some of these supposedly inevitable and universal conclusions are sincerely denied by individuals like Epicurus—who were neither immoral nor insane—we encounter the challenge faced by all systems that attempt to establish any absolute body of truth expressible in human language, contrasting with the partial, evolving, and incredibly diverse revelation of God’s mind and purpose indicated by the unfiltered facts of the world’s religious history.

The natural conceptions, as I have said, contain the primary doctrines of ethics. None of these are more important for the Stoic than that which declares essential Good to lie in the active, not the passive side of man; in the will, not in the flesh, nor in anything else which the will is unable to control. But a certain relative and conditional 28 goodness may lie in matters which are yet of no moment to the spiritual man, to that part of him which seeks the essential good. And we must note that when Epictetus speaks of certain things as good or bad or indifferent, he is generally speaking of them in their relation to the spiritual man, and in the most absolute and unconditional sense. No evil can happen to the essential part of man, to that side of him which is related to the eternal and divine, without his own will. Hence the death of a beloved friend, or child, or wife, is no evil; and if it be no evil, we are forbidden to grieve for it, or, in the most usual phrase with Epictetus, we are not to be troubled or confounded by it, ταράσσεσθαι. But if this utterance should shock our natural feelings, it will do something which assuredly Epictetus never meant it to do. It is the soul of man which these events cannot injure, and it is the soul which is forbidden to think itself injured by them. Such love of the individual as may be embraced in the larger love of the All, of God—such grief for bereavements and calamities as does not overwhelm the inner man (ii. 19) in a “wave of mortal tumult,” and dull his vital sense of the great moral ends which he was born to pursue, is repeatedly and explicitly admitted by Epictetus. Thus, in iii. 2, we have him arguing against Epicurus that there are certain natural sympathies between 29 man and his kind, and even convicting Epicurus himself of a secret belief in these sympathies. Epicurus had dissuaded his followers from marriage, and the bringing-up of children, on account of the grief and anxiety which such relations necessarily entail. Not so the Stoics—they pressed their disciples to enter into the ordinary earthly relationships of husband, or wife, or citizen, and this without pretending to have found any means of averting the natural consequences which Epicurus dreaded, although they did profess to have discovered something in man which made him equal to the endurance of them. Again, although the condition of ἀπάθεια, of inward peace, of freedom from passions, is again and again represented by Epictetus as the mark of the perfect sage, we are told that this ἀπάθεια is something quite different from “apathy”—a man is not to be emotionless “like a statue.” And a third passage confirming this view is to be found in Book I., ch. xi. (Schweighäuser), where the conduct of a man who was so afflicted by the illness of his little daughter that he ran away from the house, and would hear news of her only through messages, is condemned, not for the affection and anxiety it proved, but for its utter unreasonableness. “Would you,” asks Epictetus, “have her mother and her nurse and her pedagogue, who all love her too, also run away from her, and leave her30 to die in the hands of persons who neither love nor care for her at all?” There is a grief which is really a self-indulgence, a barren, absorbing, paralyzing grief, which, to the soul possessed by it, makes every other thing in heaven and earth seem strange and cold and trivial. From such grief alone Epictetus would deliver us, and I think he would have accepted Mr. Aubrey de Vere’s noble sonnet on Sorrow as a thoroughly fit poetic statement of Stoic doctrine on this subject:—

The natural ideas, as I mentioned, contain the core principles of ethics. None of these are more crucial for the Stoic than the idea that true Good is found in the active aspect of a person; in the will, not in the body, nor in anything else that the will cannot control. However, a certain relative and conditional goodness may exist in things that are ultimately insignificant to the spiritual individual, to that part of him that seeks the essential good. It's important to note that when Epictetus refers to things as good, bad, or indifferent, he's usually discussing them in relation to the spiritual man, in the most absolute and unconditional sense. No harm can come to the essential part of a person, to that aspect connected to the eternal and divine, without his own will. Therefore, the death of a beloved friend, child, or spouse is not evil; and if it isn't evil, we are not allowed to mourn it, or, as Epictetus often puts it, we shouldn’t be troubled or disturbed by it, ταράσσεσθαι. However, if this statement shocks our natural feelings, it will do something that Epictetus certainly never intended. It's the soul of a person that these events cannot hurt, and it’s the soul that must not consider itself harmed by them. Such love for the individual, which can be included in the greater love of the All, of God—such sorrow for losses and misfortunes that does not overwhelm the inner self (ii. 19) in a “wave of mortal tumult,” dulling his essential sense of the significant moral goals he was meant to pursue, is repeatedly and explicitly acknowledged by Epictetus. In iii. 2, he argues against Epicurus that there are natural bonds between people, even exposing Epicurus himself for secretly believing in these connections. Epicurus had discouraged his followers from marriage and raising children because of the grief and anxiety those relationships inevitably bring. The Stoics, however, encouraged their students to engage in the typical earthly roles of husband, wife, or citizen, without claiming to have found a way to evade the natural consequences Epicurus feared, although they did assert that there is something in humans that equips them to endure those consequences. Furthermore, although the state of ἀπάθεια, inner peace, and freedom from passions is repeatedly portrayed by Epictetus as a sign of the perfect sage, we are informed that this ἀπάθεια is quite different from “apathy”—a person should not be emotionless “like a statue.” A third passage confirming this perspective is in Book I., ch. xi. (Schweighäuser), where the actions of a man so troubled by his little daughter's illness that he fled the house and would only hear updates about her through messages is criticized, not for the love and anxiety it showed, but for its sheer irrationality. “Would you,” asks Epictetus, “have her mother, her nurse, and her tutor, who all love her too, also run away and leave her to die in the care of people who neither love nor care for her at all?” There is a sorrow that is actually self-indulgent, a hollow, consuming, paralyzing grief that makes everything else in heaven and earth seem strange, cold, and insignificant to the soul overtaken by it. From such grief alone, Epictetus would free us, and I believe he would have welcomed Mr. Aubrey de Vere’s beautiful sonnet on Sorrow as a perfectly suitable poetic expression of Stoic teaching on this topic:—

“Count every hardship, whether minor or serious, God's messenger sent to you; do you Greet him politely; stand up and bow; And before his shadow crosses your doorway, ask for Permission first to wash his heavenly feet; Then present to him everything you have, let No overwhelming passion to take over your thoughts, Or ruin your hospitality; no wave Of mortal chaos to erase The soul's marble-like calmness: Grief should be Like joy, majestic, calm, peaceful, Confirming, cleansing, uplifting, liberating, Able to handle small issues; to praise "Big ideas, serious thoughts, thoughts that last until the end."

But the grief that shall do this is a grief that must be felt. And Epictetus assuredly never meant to offer the Stoic philosophy as a mere stupefying anodyne. Make the man a Stoic, and something yet remains to do—to make the Stoic a man. One of these purposes was not more the concern of Epictetus31 than the other. And he pursued both of them with a strength, sincerity, and sanity of thought, with a power of nourishing the heroic fiber in humanity, which, to my mind, make him the very chief of Pagan moralists.

But the grief that will achieve this is a grief that must be felt. And Epictetus definitely never intended to present Stoic philosophy as just a numbing painkiller. Turn someone into a Stoic, and there's still more to do—to turn the Stoic into a true human. Neither of these goals was any more the concern of Epictetus31 than the other. He pursued both with a strength, sincerity, and clarity of thought, along with a power to nurture the heroic spirit in humanity, which, in my opinion, makes him the greatest of Pagan moralists.

It is no purpose of mine to fill this preface with information which the reader can gain without doubt or difficulty from the author whom it introduces, and therefore I shall leave him to discover for himself what the positive ethical teaching of Epictetus was like. Nor is it, unhappily, possible to say much upon another subject on which Epictetus gives us little or no information—his own life and circumstances. Arrian wrote a biography of him, but it is now entirely lost, and the biographical details which have been collected from Simplicius, Suidas, Aulus Gellius, and others are very scanty. He was born at Hierapolis, in Phrygia, and became, how is unknown, a slave of Epaphroditus, a freedman and favorite of Nero, who is recorded to have treated him with great cruelty. One day, it is said, Epaphroditus began twisting his leg for amusement. Epictetus said, “If you go on you will break my leg.” Epaphroditus persisted, the leg was broken, and Epictetus, with unruffled serenity, only said, “Did I not tell you that you would break my leg?” This circumstance is adduced by Celsus in his famous controversy with Origen as an32 instance of Pagan fortitude equal to anything which Christian martyrology had to show;6 but it is probably a mere myth which grew up to account for the fact mentioned by Simplicius and Suidas that Epictetus was feeble in body and lame from an early age.

It’s not my aim to fill this preface with information that the reader can easily find from the author it introduces, so I’ll let you discover for yourself what Epictetus’ ethical teachings were like. Unfortunately, there isn’t much to say about another topic where Epictetus gives us little or no information—his own life and circumstances. Arrian wrote a biography of him, but it’s completely lost now, and the biographical details collected from Simplicius, Suidas, Aulus Gellius, and others are very limited. He was born in Hierapolis, in Phrygia, and became, we don’t know how, a slave of Epaphroditus, a freedman and favorite of Nero, who is said to have treated him very cruelly. One day, it’s said, Epaphroditus started twisting his leg for fun. Epictetus said, “If you keep doing that, you’ll break my leg.” Epaphroditus continued, the leg broke, and Epictetus, with calm composure, simply said, “Didn’t I tell you that you would break my leg?” This event is cited by Celsus in his famous debate with Origen as an example of Pagan strength comparable to what Christian martyrdom has shown; but it’s likely just a myth that developed to explain the detail mentioned by Simplicius and Suidas that Epictetus was physically weak and lame from a young age.

Epaphroditus was probably a very bad master, and as a favorite and intimate of Nero’s must have been a bad man; but we have to thank him for the fact that Epictetus, while yet a slave, was sent to attend the philosophic lectures of Musonius Rufus, an eminent Stoic of Rome, whom both Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius mention with great respect. The system of philosophic training had been at this time long organized. There were masters of repute everywhere, who delivered their instruction in regular courses, received a fixed payment for the same, and under whom crowds of young men assembled from far and near to study science and ethics—to receive, in short, what corresponded to a university education in those days. The curious circumstance that a slave like Epictetus could participate in advantages of this kind is generally explained as the result of a fashionable whim which possessed Roman nobles at this time for having philosophers and men of culture among their slaves. Professor Mahaffy, in 33his Greek Life and Thought (p. 132), commenting on the summons of the two philosophers, Anaxarchus and Callisthenes, to console Alexander after his murder of Cleitus, observes, that it was probably usual to call in philosophers to minister professionally in cases of affliction. From this, to making a philosopher a regular adjunct to a large household, even as the baron of later times kept a fool, the step is not great. But Epaphroditus, one thinks, must have had frequent reason to rue the choice he made in Epictetus, if he expected his domestic philosopher to excuse his misdeeds as Anaxarchus did those of Alexander on the occasion above mentioned.

Epaphroditus was probably a terrible master, and as one of Nero’s favorites must have been a bad person; however, we owe him for the fact that Epictetus, while still a slave, was sent to attend the philosophical lectures of Musonius Rufus, a prominent Stoic from Rome, whom both Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius mention with great respect. At that time, the system of philosophical training was already well established. There were reputable teachers everywhere who offered structured courses, received set payments for their instruction, and attracted crowds of young men from near and far who came to study science and ethics—essentially, what would be equivalent to a university education back then. The interesting fact that a slave like Epictetus could access these kinds of benefits is often viewed as a result of a trendy desire among Roman nobles at that time to have philosophers and cultured individuals among their slaves. Professor Mahaffy, in 33his Greek Life and Thought (p. 132), commenting on the invitation extended to two philosophers, Anaxarchus and Callisthenes, to comfort Alexander after his murder of Cleitus, notes that it was likely common to bring in philosophers to provide professional support during times of distress. From this, it’s not a large leap to the notion of having a philosopher as a regular part of a large household, similar to how a baron would keep a fool in later times. However, one might think that Epaphroditus often had reasons to regret his choice in Epictetus if he expected his household philosopher to justify his wrongdoings like Anaxarchus did for Alexander in that mentioned situation.

In the year 94 a. d. the emperor Domitian issued a decree expelling all philosophers from Rome—an easily explainable proceeding on his part if there were any large number of them who, in the words of Epictetus, were able “to look tyrants steadily in the face.” Epictetus must have by this time obtained his freedom and set up for himself as a professor of philosophy, for we find him, in consequence of this decree, betaking himself to Nicopolis, a city of Epirus. Here he lived and taught to a venerable age, and here he delivered the discourses which Arrian has reported for us. He lived with great simplicity, and is said to have had no servant or other inmate of his house until he hired a nurse for an infant which was about 34 to be exposed, according to the practice of those days when it was desired to check the inconvenient growth of a family, and which Epictetus rescued and brought up. The date of his death is unknown.

In 94 A.D., Emperor Domitian issued a decree expelling all philosophers from Rome—an understandable move if there were many of them who could, as Epictetus put it, “look tyrants steadily in the face.” By this time, Epictetus must have gained his freedom and started his own philosophy school, because we find him relocating to Nicopolis, a city in Epirus, due to this decree. There, he lived and taught well into old age, delivering the teachings that Arrian has recorded for us. He lived simply and is said to have had no servants or other residents in his home until he hired a nurse for an infant that was about to be abandoned, in line with the customs of the time when families wanted to limit their size, which Epictetus rescued and raised. The date of his death is unknown.

And now, reader, I will take my leave of you with Arrian’s farewell salutation to Lucius Gellius, which, literally translated, is Be strong. If you need it, I know no teacher better able to make or keep you so than Epictetus. At any rate, to give him a fair chance of doing what it is in him to do for English-speaking men and women is something I have regarded as a sort of duty, a discharge of obligation for his infinite service to myself; which done to the utmost of my powers, the fewest forewords are the best.

And now, reader, I'll take my leave of you with Arrian’s farewell greeting to Lucius Gellius, which, when translated, is Be strong. If you need it, I can't think of a better teacher to help you do that than Epictetus. Anyway, I’ve seen it as a kind of responsibility to give him a fair shot at helping English-speaking men and women, as a way to repay his incredible service to me; having done this to the best of my ability, I'll keep my remarks brief.

T. W. R.

 


FOOTNOTES

1 The Encheiridion of Epictetus, Translated into English by T. W. Rolleston. Kegan Paul, Trench, & Co., 1881.

1 The Encheiridion of Epictetus, Translated into English by T. W. Rolleston. Kegan Paul, Trench, & Co., 1881.

2 Epicteti Dissertationum ab Arriano Digestarum Libri IV. et ex Deperditis Sermonibus Fragmenta. Post Io. Uptoni aliorumque curas, denuo ad Codicum M Storum fidem recensuit, Latina Versione, Adnotationibus, Indicibus illustravit Johannes Schweighäuser, Lipsiæ. MDCCXCIX.

2 The Four Books of the Discourses of Epictetus Compiled by Arrian and Fragments from the Lost Discourses. After being revised by Io. Uptoni and others, it has been re-edited according to the manuscripts of M Storum, with a Latin translation, annotations, and indexes updated by Johannes Schweighäuser, Leipzig, 1799.

Epicteti Manuale et Cebetis Tabula Græce et Latine. Schw. MDCCXCVIII.

Epictetus' Manual and Cebes' Tablet in Greek and Latin. Schw. 1798.

There are two excellent English translations of the whole extant works of Epictetus—one by Mrs. Carter, published in the last century, the other by the late George Long, M. A. (Bohn Series), to both of which, but especially the latter, I desire to record my great obligations.

There are two great English translations of all the surviving works of Epictetus—one by Mrs. Carter, published last century, and the other by the late George Long, M.A. (Bohn Series). I want to express my deep gratitude for both, but especially for the latter.

3 πάντα ῥεῖ, all flows—the cardinal doctrine of the Heracleitean philosophy.

3 everything is constantly changing, all flows—the essential principle of Heraclitus's philosophy.

4 An English translation of this work has lately appeared.

4 A new English translation of this work has recently been released.

5 Ep. 120. 4. ff.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Ep. 120. 4. ff.

6 Gregory Nazianzen, commenting on this narrative, remarks that it only shows how manfully unavoidable sufferings may be borne.

6 Gregory Nazianzen, commenting on this story, notes that it simply demonstrates how bravely inevitable hardships can be endured.




CLEANTHES’ HYMN TO ZEUS.1

Most glorious of the Immortals, many are named, Almighty forever. Zeus, ruler of nature, who governs everything with law, Hello! It is only right that all humans should speak to You. For we are Your children, reflecting only Your voice,__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ like all the living and moving things on earth. So I will praise You and sing about Your power forever. For You, the entire universe that revolves around the earth obeys, moving wherever You lead, and is happily influenced by You. You have such a minister in Your unstoppable hands;—the two-edged, blazing, eternal thunderbolt. For under its influence, all of Nature trembles, and through it, You steer the Universal Reason, which wanders through everything, blending with both the bigger and smaller lights, until it has become so great and is the ultimate ruler of all. Nothing happens on earth without You, O God, nor in the divine realm of the heavens, nor in the sea, Save the actions of wicked people in their foolishness— Yes, but You even know how to find a place for excess things, to organize what is chaotic, and things that aren't valued by people are precious to You. You bring together all good and bad things into one, so that there is one eternal reason for them all. And this is the evil that mortal men should avoid and ignore; miserable, always wanting to have the good, yet they neither see nor hear the universal Law of God. If they followed it with all their heart, their lives would be well. But they clumsily hurry towards their own goals, Some people desire fame, the source of harmful conflict, Some focused on huge profits, Some gave in to foolishness and the tempting pleasures of the flesh, Rushing, in fact, to make the exact opposite of these things happen. But you, O Zeus, the Giver of Everything, Resident of the Cloudy Darkness, Lord of Thunder, save people from their miserable foolishness, 37
38
Which you, O Father, scatter from their souls; and help them discover the wisdom, in whose assurance you govern all things with justice; In doing so, they may honor You. Praising Your works constantly, as is fitting for a human being. Since there is no greater glory for humans or gods than this, Fully to praise the Universal Law forever.
NOTE: The references in the text refer throughout to the Notes at the end of the volume; each chapter having, where notes are necessary, its own chapter of Notes.

THE TEACHING OF EPICTETUS.

BOOK I.


CHAPTER I.

the start of philosophy.

1. Wouldst thou be good, then first believe that thou art evil.

1. Would you be good, then first believe that you are bad.

2. The beginning of philosophy, at least with those who lay hold of it as they ought and enter by the door,1 is the consciousness of their own feebleness and incapacity in respect of necessary things.

2. The start of philosophy, at least for those who truly engage with it and come in through the door,1 is the awareness of their own weakness and inability when it comes to essential matters.

3. For we come into the world having by nature no idea of a right-angled triangle, or a quarter-tone, or a semi-tone, but by a certain tradition of art we learn each of these things. And thus those who know them not, do not suppose that they know them. But good and evil, and nobleness and baseness, 40and the seemly and the unseemly, and happiness and misfortune, and what is our concern and what is not, and what ought to be done and what not—who hath come into the world without an implanted notion of these things? Thus we all use these terms, and endeavor to fit our natural conceptions to every several thing. He did well, rightly, not rightly, he failed, he succeeded, he is unrighteous, he is righteous—which of us spareth to use terms like these? Which of us will defer the use of them till he hath learned them, even as ignorant men do not use terms of geometry or music? But this is the reason of it: we come into the world already, as it were, taught by Nature some things in this kind, and setting out from these things we have added thereto our own conceit.2 For how, saith one, do I not know what is noble and what is base? Have I not the notion of it? Truly. And do I not apply it to things severally? You do apply it. Do I not, then, apply it rightly? But here lies the whole question, and here conceit entereth in. For setting out from things confessed by all, they go on by a false application to that which is disputed. For if, in addition to those things, they had gained also this power of application, what would then hinder them to be perfect? But now since you think that you apply rightly the natural conceptions to things severally, tell me, whence have you this assurance?

3. When we come into the world, we don’t naturally understand things like right-angled triangles, quarter tones, or semi-tones; we learn about them through a specific tradition of art. As a result, those who are unaware of these concepts don’t think they need to know them. However, things like good and evil, nobility and baseness, what is appropriate and what is not, happiness and misfortune, what matters to us and what doesn't, and what we should or shouldn’t do—who enters the world without some inherent understanding of these concepts? We all use these terms and try to align our natural ideas with each situation. He did well, rightly, not rightly, he failed, he succeeded, he is unrighteous, he is righteous—which of us doesn’t use terms like these? Who among us waits to use them until we’ve learned them, like how ignorant people refrain from using terms in geometry or music? This is because we come into the world already, in a way, taught by Nature about certain things, and from those, we build upon our own ideas.2 For how, someone might ask, can I not know what is noble and what is base? Don’t I have an idea of it? Indeed. And don’t I apply it to different things? You do apply it. So, am I not applying it correctly? But that’s the crux of the issue, and that’s where the misunderstanding comes in. Starting from universally acknowledged facts, people then misapply their understanding to contested ideas. If they also had the ability to apply their understanding accurately, what would stop them from being perfect? But now, since you believe you apply these natural concepts to different situations correctly, tell me, where does that confidence come from?

41——“Because it seems so to me.”

41——“Because that's how it appears to me.”

But to another it seems otherwise—and he, too, doth he think his application right or not?

But to someone else, it seems different—and does he also think his approach is right or not?

——“He doth think it.”

“He thinks so.”

Can ye, then, both be rightly applying the conceptions in matters wherein your opinions contradict each other?

Can you both accurately apply the concepts in areas where your opinions clash?

——“We cannot.”

"We can't."

Have you, then, aught better to show for your application, or aught above this, that it seemeth so to you? But what else doth a madman do than those things that to him seem right? And doth this rule suffice for him?

Have you got anything better to present for your application, or anything more than this that seems right to you? But isn't that what a madman does—what seems right to him? And is this principle enough for him?

——“It doth not suffice.”

“It doesn't suffice.”

Come, then, to that which is above seeming. What is this?

Come, then, to what lies beyond appearances. What is this?

4. Behold, the beginning of philosophy is the observation of how men contradict each other, and the search whence cometh this contradiction, and the censure and mistrust of bare opinion. And it is an inquiry into that which seems, whether it rightly seems; and the discovery of a certain rule, even as we have found a balance for weights, and a plumb line for straight and crooked. This is the beginning of philosophy. Are all things right to all to whom they seem so? But how can contradictory things be right?

4. Look, the start of philosophy is noticing how people contradict each other and exploring where this contradiction comes from, along with questioning and being skeptical of mere opinions. It involves examining what appears to be true and whether it actually is; it's about finding a specific standard, just like we’ve developed a scale for weights and a plumb line for what’s straight and what’s not. This is the foundation of philosophy. Is everything right for those who believe it is? But how can opposing things be correct?

——“Nay, then, not all things, but those that seem to us right.”

——“No, then, not everything, just the things that seem right to us.”

And why to you more than the Syrians,42 or to the Egyptians? Why more than to me or to any other man? Not at all more. Seeming, then, doth not for every man answer to Being; for neither in weights or measures doth the bare appearance content us, but for each case we have discovered some rule. And here, then, is there no rule above seeming? And how could it be that there were no evidence or discovery of things the most necessary for men? There is, then, a rule. And wherefore do we not seek it, and find it, and, having found it, henceforth use it without transgression, and not so much as stretch forth a finger without it? For this it is, I think, that when it is discovered cureth of their madness those that mismeasure all things by seeming alone; so that henceforth, setting out from things known and investigated, we may use an organized body of natural conceptions in all our several dealings.

And why you more than the Syrians,42 or the Egyptians? Why more than me or any other person? Not at all more. It seems that appearance does not correspond to reality for everyone; just as in weights and measures, mere appearances don't satisfy us, but for each situation, we've discovered some standard. So is there no standard above appearances? And how could it be that there’s no evidence or understanding of the things most essential for people? There is, then, a standard. So why don’t we seek it, find it, and once we do, use it consistently without straying, not even lifting a finger without it? Because I think that when it’s found, it cures those who misjudge everything solely by appearances; so that from things we know and have explored, we can use a structured set of natural concepts in all our various dealings.

5. What is the subject about which we are inquiring? Pleasure? Submit it to the rule, cast it into the scales. Now the Good must be a thing of such sort that we ought to trust in it? Truly. And we ought to have faith in it? We ought. And ought we to trust in anything which is unstable? Nay. And hath pleasure any stability? It hath not. Take it, then, and fling it out of the scales, and set it far away from the place of the Good. But if you are dim of sight, and one balance doth not suffice, then take another.43 Is it right to be elated in what is good? Yea. And is it right to be elated then in the presence of a pleasure? See to it that thou say not it is right; or I shall not hold thee worthy even of the balance.3 Thus are things judged and weighed, when the rules are held in readiness. And the aim of philosophy is this, to examine and establish the rules. And to use them when they are known is the task of a wise and good man.

5. What are we examining? Pleasure? Let's put it to the test and weigh it. Now, the Good must be a thing we can rely on, right? Absolutely. And we should have faith in it? We should. But should we trust in anything that isn't stable? No. Does pleasure have any stability? No, it doesn't. So, let's discard it and move it far from the notion of the Good. But if you're having trouble seeing, and one scale isn't enough, then take another.43 Is it okay to feel joy in what is good? Yes. And is it okay to feel joy in the presence of pleasure? Be careful not to say it's right; otherwise, I won't consider you worthy of the scale.3 This is how things are judged and weighed when the rules are ready. The goal of philosophy is to examine and establish those rules. And using them when understood is the duty of a wise and good person.


CHAPTER II.

on the natural ideas.

1. The natural conceptions are common to all men, and one cannot contradict another. For which of us but affirms that the Good is profitable, and that we should choose it, and in all circumstances follow and pursue it? Which of us but affirms that uprightness is honorable and becoming? Where, then, doth the contradiction arise? Concerning the application of the natural conceptions to things severally. When one saith, He did well, he is a worthy man, and another, Nay, but he did foolishly, then there is a contradiction among men, one with another. And there is the same contradiction among the Jews and the Syrians and the Egyptians and the Romans; not whether that which is righteous should be preferred44 to all things and in all cases pursued, but whether this be righteous or unrighteous, to eat the flesh of swine. And ye can discover the same contradiction in the matter of Achilles and Agamemnon. For call them before us: What sayest thou, Agamemnon, Should not that which is right and fair come to pass?

1. The natural concepts are common to all people, and one can't contradict another. Which of us doesn’t believe that Good is beneficial, and that we should choose it, and in all situations, follow and pursue it? Which of us doesn’t believe that integrity is honorable and appropriate? So, where does the contradiction come from? It arises in how the natural concepts are applied to specific situations. When one says, He did well, he is a worthy man, and another replies, No, he acted foolishly, then there’s a contradiction among people, one against another. The same contradiction exists among the Jews, Syrians, Egyptians, and Romans; not whether what is right should be preferred above all and pursued in every case, but whether it is right or wrong to eat pork. You can find the same contradiction in the case of Achilles and Agamemnon. So, let’s bring them before us: What do you say, Agamemnon, should what is right and fair not happen?

——“That should it.”

“That should do it.”

And what sayest thou, Achilles, Doth it not please thee that what is fair and right should be done?

And what do you say, Achilles? Don’t you think it’s good for what is fair and right to be done?

——“Of all things this doth most please me.”

——“Of all things, this pleases me the most.”

Then make application of your natural conceptions. Whence arose this dispute? The one saith: I am not bound to deliver up Chryseis to her father. And the other saith: Thou art bound. Assuredly one of them must ill apply the conception of duty. And again the one saith: Therefore if I should deliver up Chryseis, it is meet that I take his prize from one of you. And the other: Wouldst thou, then, take from me my beloved? He saith: Yea, even thine. And shall I alone, and I alone, have nothing? And thus ariseth the contradiction.

Then apply your natural ideas. Where did this argument come from? One says: I’m not obligated to give Chryseis back to her father. And the other says: You are obligated. Clearly, one of them must be misunderstanding their duty. Then one says: So if I give up Chryseis, I should take a prize from one of you. And the other: Do you plan to take my beloved from me? He replies: Yes, even yours. And am I the only one who will end up with nothing? And that's how the contradiction arises.

2. What is it, then, to be educated? It is to learn to apply the natural conceptions to each thing severally according to nature; and further, to discern that of things that exist some are in our own power1 and the rest are not in our own power. And things45 that are in our own power are the will, and all the works of the will. And things that are not in our own power are the body, and the parts of the body, and possessions and parents and brethren and children and country and, in a word, our associates. Where now shall we place the Good? To what objects shall we apply it? To those which are in our own power? Then is health not good, and whole limbs and life? and are not children and parents and country? And who will bear with you if you say this? Let us, then, transfer it to these things. Now, can one be happy who is injured, and has missed gaining what is good? He cannot. And can such a one bear himself towards his fellows as he ought? How is it possible that he should? For I have it of nature that I must seek my own profit. If it profits me to own a piece of land, it profits me to take it from my neighbor. If it profits me to have a garment, it profits me to steal it from the bath. And hence wars, seditions, tyrannies, conspiracies. And how shall I be able to maintain a right mind towards God? for if I suffer injury and misfortune, it cannot be but He neglects me. And what have I to do with Him if He cannot help me? And, again, what have I to do with Him if He is willing to let me continue in the evils in which I am? Henceforth I begin to hate Him. Why, then, do we build temples and set up statues to Zeus as we do to powers of46 evil, such as Fever?2 And how is He now the Saviour and the Raingiver and the Fruitgiver? And verily, all this follows, if we place anywhere in external things the nature and being of the Good.

2. So, what does it mean to be educated? It means learning to apply our natural understanding to each thing according to its true nature; and additionally, to recognize that some things are under our control and some are not. The things we control are our will and all the actions that come from it. The things not under our control include our body, its parts, our possessions, our parents, siblings, children, and our country—essentially, the people in our lives. Now, where do we find the Good? To which things should we apply it? To the things we can control? If so, then we must say that health, having functioning limbs, and life itself are not good, along with children, parents, and our country. Who would accept that? Let’s consider these things instead. Can someone be happy when they are harmed and have lost what is good? No, they cannot. And can such a person treat others as they should? How could they? It’s in our nature to seek our own advantage. If owning land benefits me, then it benefits me to take it from my neighbor. If having clothing benefits me, it benefits me to steal it from the bath. This leads to wars, conflicts, tyranny, and conspiracies. How can I maintain a positive relationship with God? If I suffer injury and hardship, it seems He neglects me. What relevance does He have to me if He can’t help? And what does He matter if He is okay with letting me remain in my misfortunes? I might start to hate Him. So why do we build temples and erect statues to Zeus, just as we do for harmful powers like Fever? And how is He the Savior, the God of Rain, and the Giver of Fruits? Clearly, if we attribute the nature and essence of the Good to external things, all this follows logically.


CHAPTER III.

the master faculty.

1. Of all our faculties ye shall find but one that can contemplate itself, or, therefore, approve or disapprove itself. How far hath grammar the power of contemplation? Only so far as to judge concerning letters. And music? Only so far as to judge concerning melodies. Doth any of them, then, contemplate itself? Not one. But when you have need to write to your friend, grammar will tell you how to write; but whether to write or not, grammar will not tell. And so with the musical art in the case of melodies; but whether it is now meet or not to sing or to play, music will not tell. What, then, will tell it? That faculty which both contemplates itself and all other things. And what is this? It is the faculty of Reason; for we have received none other which can consider itself—what it is, and what it can, and what it is worth—and all the other faculties as well. For what else is it that tells us that a golden thing is beautiful, since47 itself doth not? Clearly it is the faculty which makes use of appearances. What else is it that judges of music and grammar, and the other faculties, and proves their uses, and shows the fit occasions? None else than this.

1. Of all our abilities, you will find only one that can reflect on itself, and therefore, approve or disapprove itself. How much can grammar contemplate itself? Only enough to evaluate letters. And music? Only enough to assess melodies. Do any of them contemplate themselves? Not a single one. But when you need to write to a friend, grammar will guide you on how to write; however, it won't tell you whether to write or not. The same goes for music regarding melodies; it won’t inform you whether it’s appropriate to sing or play right now. So, what will provide that insight? It’s the ability that contemplates both itself and everything else. And what is this ability? It is Reason; for we haven’t received any other faculty that can reflect on itself—what it is, what it can do, and its value—along with all the other faculties, too. For what else tells us that something golden is beautiful when it cannot do so itself? Clearly, it’s the faculty that utilizes appearances. What else judges music and grammar, and the other faculties, proves their purposes, and highlights when they are appropriate? None other than this.

2. Thus the Gods, as it was fit they should, place that only in our power which is the mightiest and master thing, the right use of appearances; but other things are not in our power. Was it that they did not wish it? I indeed think that had they been able they had made over to us those things also; but this they could in no way do. For being on the earth, and bound up with this flesh and with these associates, how was it possible that as regards these we should not be hindered by external things? But what saith Zeus? “Epictetus, if it were possible, I would have made both this thy little body and thy little property free and unhampered. But forget not now that this is but finely tempered clay, and nothing of thine own. And since I could not do this, I have given thee a part of ourselves, this power of desiring and disliking, and pursuing, avoiding, and rejecting, and, in brief, the use of appearances. Have a care, then, of this, hold this only for thine own, and thou shalt never be hindered or hampered, thou shalt not lament, thou shalt not blame, thou shalt never flatter any man.” What then? Do these seem trifling matters? God forbid. Are48 you, then, not content with them? At least I pray the Gods I may be.1

2. So the Gods, as it was meant to be, give us only what is in our control, which is the greatest power we have: the right way to use our perceptions; but other things are not within our control. Did they not want that? I truly believe that if they could, they would have also granted us control over those things; but they simply couldn’t do it. Being here on Earth, bound to this body and these connections, how could we not be affected by external circumstances? But what does Zeus say? “Epictetus, if I could, I would have made your little body and your little possessions free and unrestricted. But remember, this is just finely molded clay, and not really yours. And since I couldn’t do that, I’ve given you a part of ourselves: the power to desire and dislike, to pursue, avoid, and reject, and in short, the ability to interpret our experiences. So take care of this, claim it as your own, and you will never be limited or obstructed; you won’t lament, you won’t blame, and you’ll never have to flatter anyone.” What now? Do these seem like insignificant matters? God forbid. Are48 you not satisfied with them? I hope to be, at least.1

3. But now having one thing in our power to care for, and to cleave to, we rather choose to be careful of many things, and to bind ourselves to many things, even to the flesh, and to possessions, and to brother and friend, and child and slave. And being thus bound to many things, they lie heavy on us and drag us down. So, if the weather be not fair for sailing, we sit down distraught and are ever peering forth to see how stands the wind. It is north. And what is that to us? When will the west wind blow? When it shall seem good to it, friend; or to Æolus. For it was not thee, but Æolus whom God made “steward of the winds.”2 What then? It is right to devise how we may perfect the things that are our own, and to use the others as their nature is. And what, then, is their nature? As it may please God.

3. But now, having one thing we can take care of and hold onto, we prefer to worry about many things and tie ourselves to various attachments, like our bodies, possessions, friends, family, and even servants. Being tied to so many things weighs us down and pulls us back. So, if the weather isn't good for sailing, we sit around anxious, constantly looking out to check the wind. It’s blowing from the north. And what does that mean for us? When will the west wind come? Whenever it decides to, my friend; or when Æolus chooses. Because it wasn't you, but Æolus whom God made “the keeper of the winds.”2 So what now? It’s right to figure out how we can improve what belongs to us and to use everything else according to its nature. And what is that nature? Whatever pleases God.


CHAPTER IV.

the essence of goodness.

1. The subject for the good and wise man is his own master-faculty, as the body is for the physician and the trainer, and the soil is the subject for the husbandman. And the work of the good and wise man is to use49 appearances according to Nature. For it is the nature of every soul to consent to what is good and to reject what is evil, and to hold back about what is uncertain; and thus to be moved to pursue the good and to avoid the evil, and neither way towards what is neither good nor evil. For as it is not lawful for the money-changer or the seller of herbs to reject Cæsar’s coin, but if one present it, then, whether he will or no, he must give up what is sold for it, so it is also with the soul. When the Good appears, straightway the soul is moved towards it, and from the Evil. And never doth the soul reject any clear appearance of the good, no more than Cæsar’s coin. On this hangeth every movement both of God and man.

1. The focus for a good and wise person is their own ability to reason, just like the body is the primary concern for a doctor or a trainer, and the land is the focus for a farmer. The role of a good and wise person is to respond to appearances in line with Nature. Every soul is naturally inclined to agree with what is good and to turn away from what is evil, holding back on what is uncertain; thus, it seeks to pursue the good and avoid the evil, while remaining indifferent toward what is neither good nor evil. Just as it's not acceptable for a money-changer or an herb seller to refuse Cæsar’s coin, when it is presented, they must accept it and exchange goods for it, the same goes for the soul. When confronted with the Good, the soul is immediately drawn to it and repelled by the Evil. The soul never dismisses any clear manifestation of the good, just like it wouldn’t dismiss Cæsar’s coin. This principle governs every action of both God and humanity.

2. The nature and essence of the Good is in a certain disposition of the Will; likewise that of the Evil. What, then, are outward things? Matter for the Will, about which being occupied it shall attain its own good or evil. How shall it attain the Good? Through not being dazzled with admiration of what it works on.1 For our opinions of this, when right, make the will right, and when wrong make it evil. This law hath God established, and saith, “If thou wouldst have aught of good, have it from thyself.”

2. The nature and essence of the Good is related to a certain mindset of the Will; the same goes for the Evil. So, what are external things? They are materials for the Will, which, when focused on them, will achieve its own good or evil. How does it achieve the Good? By not being blinded by admiration of what it interacts with.1 Because our opinions on this, when correct, make the will good, and when incorrect, make it evil. This law has been established by God, who says, “If you want any good, get it from yourself.”

3. If these things are true (and if we are not fools or hypocrites), that Good, for man, lies in the Will, and likewise Evil, and all50 other things are nothing to us, why are we still troubled? why do we fear? The things for which we have been zealous are in no other man’s power; and for the things that are in others’ power we are not concerned. What difficulty have we now? But direct me, sayest thou. And why shall I direct thee? hath not God directed thee? hath He not given thee that which is thine own unhindered and unhampered, and hindered and hampered that which is not thine own? And what direction, what word of command didst thou receive from Him when thou camest thence? “Hold fast everything which is thine own—covet not that which is alien to thee. And faithfulness is thine, and reverence is thine: who, then, can rob thee of these things? Who can hinder thee to use them, if not thyself? But thyself can do it, and how? When thou art zealous about things not thine own, and hast cast away the things that are.” With such counsels and commands from Zeus, what wilt thou still from me? Am I greater than he? am I more worthy of thy faith? But if thou hold to these things, of what others hast thou need? But perchance these are none of his commands? Then bring forward the natural conceptions, bring the proofs of the philosophers, bring the things thou hast often heard, bring the things that thyself hast spoken, bring what thou hast read, bring what thou hast pondered.

3. If these things are true (and if we’re not fools or hypocrites), that Good, for us, lies in the Will, and so does Evil, and that all50 other things mean nothing to us, why are we still troubled? Why do we fear? The things we are passionate about are not under anyone else's control; and the things that are in other people's power don’t concern us. What difficulty do we face now? But guide me, you say. And why should I guide you? Hasn’t God guided you? Has He not given you that which is truly yours without interference, and restricted what is not yours? And what direction, what command did you receive from Him when you moved from there? “Hold on to everything that belongs to you—don’t desire what belongs to others. Faithfulness is yours, and respect is yours: who, then, can take these things from you? Who can stop you from using them, if not yourself? But you can do that, and how? When you are overly focused on things that don’t belong to you, and you’ve neglected the things that are yours.” With such guidance and commands from Zeus, what more do you want from me? Am I greater than he? Am I more deserving of your trust? But if you cling to these things, what else do you need? But perhaps these are not his commands? Then present the natural concepts, bring forth the philosophers’ proofs, share the things you’ve often heard, the things you’ve spoken yourself, what you’ve read, and what you’ve reflected on.


CHAPTER V.

the value of philosophy.

1. Of things that exist, some are in our own power, some are not in our own power. Of things that are in our own power are our opinions, impulses, pursuits, avoidances, and, in brief, all that is of our own doing. Of things that are not in our own power are the body, possessions, reputation, authority, and, in brief, all that is not of our own doing. And the things that are in our own power are in their nature free, not liable to hindrance or embarrassment, while the things that are not in our own power are strengthless, servile, subject, alien.

1. Among everything that exists, some things are within our control, while others are not. The things that are in our control include our opinions, desires, goals, things we choose to avoid, and essentially everything we can influence. On the other hand, the things that are beyond our control include our bodies, possessions, reputation, authority, and basically anything we cannot directly affect. The things within our control are inherently free, not subject to interference or embarrassment, while the things outside our control are powerless, subordinate, dependent, and foreign to us.

2. Remember, then, if you hold things by their nature subject to be free, and things alien to be your proper concern, you will be hampered, you will lament, you will be troubled, you will blame Gods and men. But if you hold that only to be your own which is so, and the alien for what it is, alien, then none shall ever compel you, none shall hinder you, you will blame no one, accuse no one, you will not do the least thing unwillingly, none shall harm you, you shall have no foe, for you shall suffer no injury.

2. Remember, if you consider things that can be free as part of your life, and things that are outside your control as irrelevant, you'll feel stuck, you'll complain, you'll be anxious, and you'll blame both gods and people. But if you understand that what truly belongs to you is what you can control, and see the rest as just that—outside of you—then no one can force you to do anything, no one can hold you back, you won’t blame anyone, accuse anyone, or act against your will. No one can hurt you, you won’t have enemies, because you won’t suffer any harm.

523. Aiming, then, at things so high, remember that it is no moderate passion wherewith you must attempt them, but some things you must utterly renounce, and put some, for the present, aside. For if, let us say, you aim also at this, to rule and to gather riches, then you are like, through aiming at the chief things also, to miss these lower ends; and shall most assuredly miss those others, through which alone freedom and happiness are won. Straightway, then, practice saying to every harsh appearance—Thou art an Appearance and not at all the thing thou appearest to be. Then examine it, and prove it by the rules you have, but first and above all by this, whether it concern something that is in our own power, or something that is not in our own power. And if the latter, then be the thought at hand: It is nothing to Me.

523. As you strive for such high goals, remember that this journey requires intense passion. You will need to give up some things entirely and set others aside for now. If, for example, you also desire to gain power and accumulate wealth, pursuing these higher ambitions might cause you to neglect these lower goals. You will likely miss out on the very things that lead to freedom and happiness. So, right away, start telling yourself about every challenging situation—You are just an Appearance, not what you seem. Then, evaluate it using the principles you know, but above all, check whether it relates to something within your control or something beyond it. If it’s the latter, remind yourself: It doesn't concern me.


CHAPTER VI.

the philosophy approach.

1. A certain Roman having entered with his son and listened to one lecture, “This,” said Epictetus, “is the manner of teaching;” and he was silent. But when the other prayed him to continue, he spake as follows:—

1. A certain Roman came in with his son and listened to one lecture. “This,” said Epictetus, “is how teaching works;” and he went quiet. But when the other asked him to continue, he spoke as follows:—

Every art is wearisome, in the learning53 of it, to the untaught and unskilled. Yet things that are made by the arts immediately declare their use, and for what they were made, and in most of them is something attractive and pleasing. And thus when a shoemaker is learning his trade it is no pleasure to stand by and observe him, but the shoe is useful, and moreover not unpleasing to behold. And the learning of a carpenter’s trade is very grievous to an untaught person who happens to be present, but the work done declares the need of the art. But far more is this seen in music, for if you are by where one is learning, it will appear the most painful of all instructions; but that which is produced by the musical art is sweet and delightful to hear, even to those who are untaught in it. And here we conceive the work of one who studies philosophy to be some such thing, that he must fit his desire to all events, so that nothing may come to pass against our will, nor may aught fail to come to pass that we wish for. Whence it results to those who so order it, that they never fail to obtain what they would, nor to avoid what they would not, living, as regards themselves, without pain, fear, or trouble; and as regards their fellows, observing all the relations, natural and acquired; as son or father, or brother or citizen, or husband or wife, or neighbor or fellow-traveler, or prince or subject. Such we conceive to be the work of one who54 pursues philosophy. And next we must inquire how this may come about.

Every art is tiring to learn for those who are clueless and unskilled. However, things created through these arts quickly show their purpose and reason for existence, and most of them have an appealing quality. So, when a shoemaker is training, it’s not fun to watch him, but the resulting shoe is useful and also looks nice. Similarly, learning carpentry is quite difficult for someone without knowledge, but the finished work reveals the necessity of the craft. This is especially true in music; being nearby while someone learns can be painful to listen to, but the music that emerges is sweet and enjoyable, even for those unfamiliar with it. We can think of the work of a philosophy student in a similar way. They must align their desires with all happenings so that nothing occurs against their will, and nothing they wish for is left unfulfilled. This leads those who manage it well to always get what they want and to avoid what they don’t, living without pain, fear, or trouble regarding themselves, while also maintaining relationships with others—be it as a son, father, brother, citizen, husband, wife, neighbor, fellow traveler, prince, or subject. This is what we believe to be the task of someone pursuing philosophy. Next, we need to explore how this can be achieved.

2. We see, then, that the carpenter becomes a carpenter by learning something, and by learning something the pilot becomes a pilot. And here also is it not on this wise? Is it enough that we merely wish to become good and wise, or must we not also learn something? We inquire, then, what we have to learn?

2. So, we see that a carpenter becomes a carpenter by learning something, and by learning something, a pilot becomes a pilot. Isn’t it the same here? Is it enough just to want to be good and wise, or do we need to learn something as well? So, we ask, what do we need to learn?

3. The philosophers say that, before all things, it is needful to learn that God is, and taketh thought for all things; and that nothing can be hid from Him, neither deeds, nor even thoughts or wishes. Thereafter, of what nature the Gods are. For whatever they are found to be, he who would please and serve them must strive, with all his might, to be like unto them. If the Divine is faithful, so must he be faithful; if free, so must he be free; if beneficent, so must he be beneficent; if high-minded, so must he be high-minded; so that thus emulating God, he shall both do and speak the things that follow therefrom.1

3. Philosophers say that, first and foremost, it's essential to understand that God exists and cares for everything; nothing is hidden from Him, whether it’s actions, thoughts, or desires. After that, we consider the nature of the Gods. Because whatever they are found to be, anyone who wants to please and serve them must strive, with all their strength, to be like them. If the Divine is faithful, then he must be faithful; if free, then he must be free; if generous, then he must be generous; if noble, then he must be noble; so that by emulating God, he will both do and say the things that follow from this.1

4. Whence, then, shall we make a beginning? If you will consider this with me, I shall say, first, that you must attend to the sense of words.2

4. So where do we start? If you think about this with me, I’ll say first that you need to pay attention to the meaning of words.2

——“So I do not now understand them?”

——“So I don’t understand them now?”

You do not.

You don’t.

——“How, then, do I use them?”

——“So, how do I use them?”

As the unlettered use written words, or as55 cattle use appearances; for the use is one thing and understanding another. But if you think you understand, then take any word you will,3 and let us try ourselves, whether we understand it. But it is hateful to be confuted, for a man now old, and one who, perhaps, hath served his three campaigns! And I too know this. For you have come to me now as one who lacketh nothing. And what could you suppose to be lacking to you? Wealth have you, and children, and it may be a wife, and many servants; Cæsar knows you, you have won many friends in Rome, you give every man his due, you reward with good him that doeth good to you, and with evil him that doeth evil. What is still lacking to you? If, now, I shall show you that you lack the greatest and most necessary things for happiness, and that to this day you have cared for everything rather than for what behooved you; and if I crown all and say that you know not what God is nor what man is, nor Good nor Evil;—and what I say of other things is perhaps endurable, but if I say you know not your own self, how can you endure me, and bear the accusation, and abide here? Never—but straightway you will go away in anger. And yet what evil have I done you? Unless the mirror doth evil to the ill-favored man, when it shows him to himself such as he is, and unless the physician is thought to affront the sick man when56 he may say to him: Man, dost thou think thou ailest nothing? Thou hast a fever: fast to-day and drink water. And none saith, What an affront. But if one shall say to a man: Thy pursuits art inflamed, thine avoidances are mean, thy purposes are lawless, thy impulses accord not with nature, thine opinions are vain and lying—straightway he goeth forth and saith, He affronted me.

As uneducated people use written words, or as cattle rely on appearances; because using something and understanding it are two different things. But if you believe you understand, then pick any word you like, and let’s see if we really get it. But it’s frustrating to be proven wrong, especially for someone who’s older and maybe has fought in three battles! I know this too. You’ve come to me as if you have everything you need. What do you think is missing? You have wealth, children, possibly a wife, and many servants; Caesar knows you, you’ve made a lot of friends in Rome, you treat everyone fairly, you reward those who do good to you, and you retaliate against those who wrong you. So what else do you need? Now, if I show you that you lack the most essential things for happiness, and that all this time you’ve prioritized everything except what you truly need; and if I conclude by saying that you don’t know what God is, or what a human being is, or what Good and Evil are;—and while what I say about other things might be acceptable, if I tell you that you don’t even know yourself, how can you stand there, take it, and remain here? No—you’ll just leave in anger. But what wrong have I done to you? Unless a mirror is considered cruel to someone unattractive by showing them their true reflection, or unless a doctor is viewed as rude when he tells a sick person: “Man, do you really think you’re not unwell? You have a fever: fast today and drink water.” No one says, “What rudeness.” But if someone tells a man: “Your desires are misguided, your aversions are petty, your goals are reckless, your instincts go against nature, your beliefs are false and deceptive,”—right away he walks away saying, “He insulted me.”

5. We follow our business as in a great fair. Cattle and oxen are brought to be sold; and the greater part of the men come some to buy, some to sell; and few are they who come for the spectacle of the fair,—how it comes to pass, and wherefore, and who are they who have established it, and to what end. And so it is here, too, in this assembly of life. Some, indeed, like cattle, concern themselves with nothing but fodder; even such as those that care for possessions and lands and servants and offices, for these are nothing more than fodder. But few are they who come to the fair for love of the spectacle, what the world is and by whom it is governed. By no one? And how is it possible that a state or a house cannot endure, no not for the shortest time, without a governor and overseer, but this so great and fair fabric should be guided thus orderly by chance and accident? There is, then, one who governs. But what is his nature? and how doth he govern? and we, that were made by him, what are we, and for what57 are we? or have we at least some intercourse and link with him, or have we none? Thus it is that these few are moved, and thenceforth study this alone, to learn about the fair, and to depart. What then? they are mocked by the multitude. And in the fair, too, the observers are mocked by the traders; and had the cattle any reflection they would mock all those who cared for anything else than fodder.

5. We run our lives like a big fair. Cattle and oxen are brought in to be sold, and most people come either to buy or sell; only a few come just to enjoy the spectacle of the fair—how it happens, why it exists, who created it, and what purpose it serves. The same goes for this gathering of life. Some, like cattle, only care about their basic needs; even those who focus on their possessions, land, servants, and jobs only care about their basic needs. But few come to the fair out of love for the experience, to understand what the world is and who runs it. No one? How is it that a state or a household can't survive, not even for a short while, without a leader and someone to oversee it, yet this grand and beautiful structure of life is managed so orderly by randomness and happenstance? So there must be someone in charge. But what is this person's nature? How do they govern? And we, created by them, who are we, and why are we here? Do we at least have some connection to them, or none at all? Thus, these few are inspired to study this alone, to learn about the fair and to move on. What happens then? They get ridiculed by the crowd. And at the fair, too, the spectators are mocked by the sellers; if the cattle could think, they would mock anyone who cared about anything other than their basic needs.


CHAPTER VII.

to the student.

1. Remember that pursuit declares the aim of attaining the thing pursued, and avoidance that of not falling into the thing shunned; and he who fails in his pursuit is unfortunate, and it is misfortune to fall into what he would avoid. If now you shun only those things in your power which are contrary to Nature, you shall never fall into what you would avoid. But if you shun disease or death or poverty, you shall have misfortune.

1. Remember that chasing something shows your goal of getting it, while avoiding something means you’re trying not to end up with what you don’t want; if you don’t achieve your pursuit, you’re unfortunate, and it’s a misfortune to end up with what you wanted to avoid. If you only steer clear of things within your control that go against Nature, you won’t end up with what you want to avoid. But if you avoid disease, death, or poverty, you will encounter misfortune.

2. Turn away, then, your avoidance from things not in our power, and set it upon things contrary to Nature which are in our power. And let pursuit for the present be utterly effaced; for if you are pursuing something that is not in our power, it must58 needs be that you miscarry, and of things that are, as many as you may rightly aim at, none are yet open to you. But use only desire and aversion, and that indeed lightly, and with reserve, and indifferently.

2. So, turn your focus away from things that are beyond our control, and instead concentrate on those things that go against Nature but are within our ability to influence. And for now, let go of your desire to pursue anything; if you chase something out of your control, you'll inevitably fail, and among the options that are available to you, none are truly accessible at this moment. Instead, use your desires and aversions, but do so lightly, cautiously, and without attachment.

3. No great thing cometh suddenly into being, for not even a bunch of grapes can, or a fig. If you say to me now: I desire a fig, I answer that there is need of time: let it first of all flower, and then bring forth the fruit, and then ripen. When the fruit of a fig-tree is not perfected at once, and in a single hour, would you win the fruit of a man’s mind thus quickly and easily? Even if I say to you, expect it not.

3. Nothing great happens overnight, just like a bunch of grapes or a fig doesn’t appear instantly. If you tell me now, I want a fig, I’ll say it takes time: first, it has to blossom, then produce the fruit, and finally ripen. Just as a fig-tree doesn't yield its fruit all at once in a single hour, can you really expect to develop a person’s mind that quickly and easily? Even if I say you shouldn’t expect that.

4. To fulfill the promise of a man’s nature is itself no common thing. For what is a man? A living creature, say you; mortal, and endowed with Reason. And from what are we set apart by Reason? From the wild beasts. And what others? From sheep and the like. Look to it, then, that thou do nothing like a wild beast, for if thou do, the man in thee perisheth, thou hast not fulfilled his promise. Look to it, that thou do nothing like a sheep, or thus too the man hath perished. What, then, can we do as sheep? When we are gluttonous, sensual, reckless, filthy, thoughtless, to what are we then sunken? To sheep. What have we lost? Our faculty of Reason. And when we are contentious, and hurtful, and angry, and violent, to what are we sunken? To wild59 beasts. And for the rest some of us are great wild beasts, and some of us little and evil ones; whereby we may say, “Let me at least be eaten by a lion.”1 But through all these things the promise of the man’s nature has been ruined.

4. Fulfilling the promise of a man's nature is not something ordinary. So, what is a man? A living being, you say; mortal, and equipped with Reason. And what distinguishes us because of Reason? From wild animals. And what else? From sheep and similar creatures. So, make sure you don't act like a wild animal, because if you do, the humanity within you fades away, and you haven't fulfilled his promise. Be careful not to behave like a sheep either, or then too the man will have perished. What can we do like sheep? When we indulge, are sensual, reckless, dirty, and thoughtless, to what do we then sink? To sheep. What have we lost? Our capacity for Reason. And when we are argumentative, harmful, angry, and violent, to what do we then sink? To wild59 animals. As for some of us, we are great wild beasts, and some are smaller and evil ones; thus, we might say, “At least let me be eaten by a lion.”1 Yet through all these actions, the promise of man's nature gets destroyed.

5. For when is a complex proposition safe?2 When it fulfills its promise. So that the validity of a complex proposition is when it is a complex of truths. And when is a disjunctive safe? When it fulfills its promise. And when are flutes, or a lyre, or a horse, or a dog? What marvel is it, then, if a man also is to be saved in the same way, and perish in the same way?

5. When is a complex statement reliable?2 When it lives up to what it claims. So, the validity of a complex statement is when it consists of truths. And when is a disjunctive reliable? When it lives up to what it claims. And when are flutes, or a lyre, or a horse, or a dog? What a surprise it is if a person is saved in the same way and also perishes in the same way?

6. But each thing is increased and saved by the corresponding works—the carpenter by the practice of carpentry, the grammarian by the study of grammar; but if he use to write ungrammatically, it must needs be that his art shall be corrupted and destroyed. Thus, too, the works of reverence save the reverent man, and those of shamelessness destroy him. And works of faithfulness save the faithful man, and the contrary destroy him. And men of the contrary character are strengthened therein by contrary deeds; the irreverent by irreverence, the faithless by faithlessness, the reviler by reviling, the angry by anger, the avaricious by unfair giving and taking.

6. But everything grows and is preserved by its related actions—the carpenter improves through practicing carpentry, and the grammarian through studying grammar; however, if he writes improperly, his skills will inevitably be damaged and lost. Similarly, the actions of respect help the respectful person, while those of shamelessness lead to their downfall. Actions of loyalty benefit the loyal person, and the opposite harms them. People with opposing traits become stronger through their negative actions; the disrespectful through irreverence, the disloyal through unfaithfulness, the attacker through attacking, the angry through expressing anger, and the greedy through unfair exchanges.

7. Know, that not easily shall a conviction arise in a man unless he every day speak60 the same things and hear the same things, and at the same time apply them unto life.

7. Be aware that a person won't easily develop a conviction unless he talks about the same things every day, hears the same things, and also puts them into practice in his life.

8. Every great power is perilous to beginners. Thou must bear such things according to thy strength. But I must live according to Nature? That is not for a sick man.3 Lead thy life as a sick man for a while, so that thou mayest hereafter live it as a whole man. Fast, drink water, abstain for a while from pursuit of every kind, in order that thou mayest pursue as Reason bids. And if as Reason bids, then when thou shalt have aught of good in thee, thy pursuit shall be well. Nay, but we would live as sages and do good to men. What good? What wilt thou do? Hast thou done good to thyself? But thou wouldst exhort them? And hast thou exhorted thyself?4 Thou wouldst do them good—then do not chatter to them, but show them in thyself what manner of men philosophy can make. In thy eating do good to those that eat with thee, in thy drinking to those that drink, by yielding and giving place to all, and bearing with them. Thus do them good, and not by spitting thy bile upon them.

8. Every powerful person can be dangerous to beginners. You have to handle things based on your own strength. But I should live according to nature? That’s not for someone who's sick.3 Live like a sick person for a while, so you can later live fully. Fast, drink water, and take a break from all pursuits so that you can follow what reason suggests. When you have something good in you, your pursuits will turn out well if they align with reason. No, we want to live like wise people and do good for others. What good? What are you going to do? Have you done good for yourself? But you want to encourage them? Have you encouraged yourself?4 You want to help them—so don’t just talk to them; show them through your own actions what kind of people philosophy can create. When you eat, do right by those eating with you; when you drink, do right by those drinking with you, by yielding, giving space to everyone, and being patient with them. That’s how to do them good, not by criticizing them harshly.


CHAPTER VIII.

the skeptic.1

1. One of his pupils, who seemed to be drawn towards the way of Cynicism, inquired of Epictetus what manner of man the Cynic ought to be, and what was the natural conception of the thing. And Epictetus said: Let us look into it at leisure. But so much I have now to say to you, that whosoever shall without God attempt so great a matter stirreth up the wrath of God against him, and desireth only to behave himself unseemly before the people. For in no well-ordered house doth one come in and say to himself: I should be the steward of the house, else, when the lord of the house shall have observed it, and seeth him insolently giving orders, he will drag him forth and chastise him. So it is also, in this great city of the universe, for here too there is a master of the house who ordereth each and all: Thou art the Sun; thy power is to travel round and to make the year and the seasons, and to increase and nourish fruits, and to stir the winds and still them, and temperately to warm the bodies of men. Go forth, run thy course, and minister thus to the greatest things and to the least. Thou art62 a calf; when a lion shall appear, do what befits thee, or it shall be worse for thee. Thou art a bull; come forth and fight, for this is thy part and pride, and this thou canst. Thou art able to lead the army against Ilion; be Agamemnon. Thou canst fight in single combat with Hector; be Achilles. But if Thersites came forth and pretended to the authority, then either he would not gain it, or, gaining it, he would have been shamed before many witnesses.

1. One of his students, who seemed to be interested in Cynicism, asked Epictetus what kind of person a Cynic should be and what the idea behind it was. Epictetus replied: Let's take our time and look into it. But here's what I can tell you right now: anyone who tries to tackle such a big matter without God stirs up God's anger against them and just seeks to act inappropriately in front of others. In a well-run household, no one walks in and thinks to themselves: I should be the steward of the house; otherwise, when the lord of the house notices and sees them arrogantly giving orders, he will throw them out and punish them. Similarly, in this vast city of the universe, there is also a master of the house who manages everything: You are the Sun; your role is to move around, create the year and the seasons, grow and nourish fruits, stir and calm the winds, and moderately warm people's bodies. Go ahead, travel your path, and serve the greatest and the smallest tasks. You are a calf; when a lion appears, act accordingly, or it will be worse for you. You are a bull; step up and fight, for that is your role and pride, and you can do it. You are capable of leading the army against Troy; be Agamemnon. You can battle Hector in single combat; be Achilles. But if Thersites stepped up and claimed authority, he would either not gain it, or if he did, he would be humiliated in front of many witnesses.

2. And about this affair, do thou take thought upon it earnestly, for it is not such as it seemeth to thee. I wear a rough cloak now, and I shall wear it then;2 I sleep hard now, and I shall sleep so then. I will take to myself a wallet and staff, and I will begin to go about and beg, and to reprove every one I meet with; and if I shall see one that plucks out his hairs, I will censure him, or one that hath his hair curled, or that goes in purple raiment. If thou conceivest the matter on this wise, far be it from thee—go not near it, it is not for thee. But if thou conceivest of it as it is, and holdest thyself not unworthy of it, then behold to how great an enterprise thou art putting forth thine hand.

2. About this situation, you should really think it over, because it’s not what it seems. I wear a rough cloak now, and I’ll still wear it then; 2 I sleep uncomfortably now, and I’ll sleep like that then. I’ll take a bag and a stick, and I’ll go around begging and calling out everyone I meet; and if I see someone pulling out their hair, I’ll criticize them, or someone with curled hair, or someone wearing purple clothing. If you think about it this way, stay away from it—it’s not for you. But if you see it for what it is and don’t feel unworthy of it, then look at how great an endeavor you’re about to take on.

3. First, in things that concern thyself, thou must appear in nothing like unto what thou now doest. Thou must not accuse God nor man; thou must utterly give over pursuit, and avoid only those things that are in the power of thy will; anger is not meet for63 thee, nor resentment, nor envy, nor pity;3 nor must a girl appear to thee fair, nor must reputation, nor a flat cake.4 For it must be understood that other men shelter themselves by walls and houses and by darkness when they do such things, and many means of concealment have they. One shutteth the door, placeth some one before the chamber; if any one should come, say, He is out, he is busy. But in place of all these things it behooves the Cynic to shelter himself behind his own piety and reverence; but if he doth not, he shall be put to shame, naked under the sky. This is his house, this his door, this the guards of his chamber, this his darkness. For he must not seek to hide aught that he doeth, else he is gone, the Cynic hath perished, the man who lived under the open sky, the freeman. He hath begun to fear something from without, he hath begun to need concealment; nor can he find it when he would, for where shall he hide himself, and how? And if by chance this tutor, this public teacher, should be found in guilt, what things must he not suffer! And fearing these things, can he yet take heart with his whole soul to guide the rest of mankind? That can he never: it is impossible!

3. First, in matters that concern you, you must not behave at all like you do now. You must not blame God or anyone else; you must completely give up your pursuits and focus only on things that you can control. Anger is not suitable for you, nor are resentment, envy, or pity; a girl shouldn't seem attractive to you, nor should your reputation or a flat cake. For you must understand that other people hide themselves behind walls, houses, and darkness when they engage in such actions, with many ways to conceal themselves. One shuts the door and places someone in front of the room; if anyone should come, say, He is out, he is busy. But instead of relying on these things, the Cynic must take shelter behind his own integrity and respect; if he doesn’t, he will be embarrassed, exposed under the sky. This is his home, this is his door, these are the guards of his room, this is his darkness. He must not try to hide anything he does; otherwise, he is lost—the Cynic has perished, the one who lived under the open sky, the free man. He has started to fear something from outside, needing concealment; and he can’t find it when he wants to, for where will he hide, and how? And if by chance this teacher, this public guide, is found guilty, what will he not have to endure! And fearing these things, can he genuinely inspire others to guide the rest of humanity? He cannot: it is impossible!

4. First, then, thou must purify thy ruling faculty and this vocation of thine also, saying: Now it is my mind I must shape, as the carpenter shapes wood and the shoe64maker leather; and the thing to be formed is a right use of appearances. But nothing to me is the body, and nothing to me the parts of it. Death? Let it come when it will, either death of the whole or of a part. Flee it! And whither? Can any man cast me out of the universe? He cannot; but whithersoever I may go there will be the sun, and the moon, and there the stars, and visions, and omens, and communion with the Gods.5

4. First, you need to clean up your thinking and your purpose, saying: Now I need to shape my mind, just like a carpenter shapes wood and a shoemaker shapes leather; and what I need to form is a proper understanding of appearances. But to me, the body means nothing, and its parts mean nothing either. Death? Let it come when it comes, whether it's the death of the whole or part. Run from it! And to where? Can anyone kick me out of the universe? They can’t; wherever I go, there will be the sun, the moon, the stars, visions, omens, and connections with the Gods.5

5. And, furthermore, when he hath thus fashioned himself, he will not be content with these things, who is a Cynic indeed. But know that he is an herald from God to men, declaring to them the truth about good and evil things; that they have erred, and are seeking the reality of good and evil where it is not; and where it is, they do not consider; and he is a spy, like Diogenes, when he was led captive to Philip after the battle of Chæronea.6 For the Cynic is, in truth, a spy of the things that are friendly to men, and that are hostile; and having closely spied out all, he must come back and declare the truth. And he must neither be stricken with terror and report of enemies where none are; nor be in any otherwise confounded or troubled by the appearances.

5. And, furthermore, once he has shaped himself this way, he won't be satisfied with just these things; he truly is a Cynic. But understand that he is a messenger from God to people, revealing to them the truth about good and evil; that they have made mistakes and are looking for the reality of good and evil where it doesn't exist, and where it does exist, they fail to notice. He is also a watcher, like Diogenes, when he was taken captive by Philip after the Battle of Chæronea.6 The Cynic is, in fact, an observer of what is beneficial to humanity and what is harmful; having observed everything closely, he must return and share the truth. He must not be struck with fear and falsely report enemies where there are none, nor should he be confused or troubled by appearances.

6. He must then be able, if so it chance, to go up impassioned, as on the tragic stage, and speak that word of Socrates, “O men, whither are ye borne away? What do ye?65 Miserable as ye are! like blind men ye wander up and down. Ye have left the true road, and are going by a false; ye are seeking peace and happiness where they are not, and if another shall show you where they are, ye believe him not. Wherefore will ye seek it in outward things? In the body? It is not there—and if ye believe me not, lo, Myro! lo, Ophellius.7 In possessions? It is not there, and if ye believe me not, lo, Crœsus! lo, the wealthy of our own day, how full of mourning is their life! In authority? It is not there, else should those be happy who have been twice or thrice consul; yet they are not. Whom shall we believe in this matter? You, who look but on these men from without, and are dazzled by the appearance, or the men themselves? And what say they? Hearken to them when they lament, when they groan, when by reason of those consulships, and their glory and renown, they hold their state the more full of misery and danger! In royalty? It is not there; else were Nero happy and Sardanapalus; but not Agamemnon himself was happy, more splendid though he was than Nero or Sardanapalus; but while the rest are snoring what is he doing?”

6. He should then be able, if it happens, to go up passionately, like on a tragic stage, and say that word from Socrates, “Oh people, where are you going? What are you doing? 65 Miserable as you are! Like blind people, you wander around. You have left the true path and are following a false one; you are searching for peace and happiness where they don’t exist, and if someone shows you where they are, you won’t believe them. Why do you seek it in external things? In the body? It’s not there—and if you don’t believe me, look at Myro! Look at Ophellius.7 In possessions? It’s not there either, and if you don’t believe me, look at Crœsus! Look at the wealthy of today, how full of sorrow their lives are! In authority? It’s not there, or else those who have been consul multiple times would be happy; yet they are not. Who should we believe about this? You, who only see these people from the outside and are dazzled by their appearance, or the people themselves? And what do they say? Listen to them when they mourn, when they groan, when because of their consulships and their glory and fame, they find their lives more filled with misery and danger! In royalty? It’s not there either; otherwise, Nero and Sardanapalus would be happy; but Agamemnon himself wasn’t happy, even though he was more splendid than Nero or Sardanapalus; while everyone else is sleeping, what is he doing?”

"He ripped his hair out by the handful." —Il. x.

And what saith himself? “I am distraught,” he saith, “and I am in anguish;66 my heart leaps forth from my bosom.”—[Il. x.] Miserable man! which of thy concerns hath gone wrong with thee? Thy wealth? Nay. Thy body? Nay; but thou art rich in gold and bronze. What ails thee then? That part, whatever it be, with which we pursue, with which we avoid, with which we desire and dislike, thou hast neglected and corrupted. How hath it been neglected? He hath been ignorant of the true Good for which it was born, and of the Evil; and of what is his own, and what is alien to him. And when it goeth ill with something that is alien to him, he saith, Woe is me, for the Greeks are in peril. O unhappy mind of thee! of all things alone neglected and untended. They will be slain by the Trojans and die! And if the Trojans slay them not, will they not still die? Yea, but not all together. What, then, doth it matter? for if it be an evil to die, it is alike evil to die together or to die one by one. Shall anything else happen to them than the parting of body and soul? Nothing. And when the Greeks have perished, is the door closed to thee? canst thou not also die? I can. Wherefore, then, dost thou lament: Woe is me, a king, and bearing the scepter of Zeus? There is no unfortunate king, as there is no unfortunate God. What, then, art thou? In very truth a shepherd; for thou lamentest even as shepherds do when a wolf hath snatched away one of the sheep; and sheep are they whom67 thou dost rule. And why art thou come hither? Was thy faculty of pursuit in any peril, or of avoidance, or thy desire or aversion? Nay, he saith, but my brother’s wife was carried away. Was it not a great gain to be rid of an adulterous wife? Shall we be, then, despised of the Trojans? Of the Trojan? Of what manner of men? of wise men or fools? If of wise men, why do ye make war with them? if of fools, why do ye heed them?8

And what does he say? “I’m distraught,” he says, “and I’m in agony; my heart is bursting from my chest.” —[Il. x.] Poor guy! What’s gone wrong? Is it your wealth? Nope. Your body? Nope; you’re loaded with gold and bronze. So, what’s bothering you? That part of you, whatever it is, that drives you to chase after things, to run away from things, to want and to dislike, you’ve ignored and messed up. How did you neglect it? You’ve been clueless about the true Good it was meant to pursue, and about Evil; and about what belongs to you and what doesn’t. And when something that doesn’t belong to you goes wrong, you say, “Woe is me, the Greeks are in danger.” Oh, miserable mind! The only thing you’ve overlooked and left unattended. “They’ll be killed by the Trojans and die!” But if the Trojans don’t kill them, will they not still die? “Yeah, but not all at once.” So, what difference does it make? If dying is bad, it’s equally bad whether you die together or one by one. Will anything else happen to them besides the separation of body and soul? “No.” And when the Greeks are gone, is the door shut for you? Can you not die as well? “I can.” So why do you mourn: “Woe is me, a king, holding the scepter of Zeus”? There’s no unfortunate king, just like there’s no unfortunate God. So, who are you, really? Just a shepherd; because you mourn like a shepherd does when a wolf takes one of the sheep; and the sheep are those you rule. And why did you come here? Was your ability to chase after something in danger, or to avoid it, or your desire or aversion? “No,” he says, “but my brother’s wife was taken.” Wasn’t it a relief to get rid of an unfaithful wife? “Are we, then, going to be looked down upon by the Trojans?” By the Trojan? What kind of men? Wise men or fools? If they’re wise, why are you waging war with them? If they’re fools, why do you care about them?

7. In what, then, is the good, seeing that in these things it is not? Tell us, thou, my lord missionary and spy! It is there where ye deem it not, and where ye have no desire to seek it. For did ye desire, ye would have found it in yourselves, nor would ye wander to things without, nor pursue things alien, as if they were your own concerns. Turn to your own selves; understand the natural conceptions which ye possess. What kind of thing do ye take the Good to be? Peace? happiness? freedom? Come, then, do ye not naturally conceive it as great, as precious, and that cannot be harmed? What kind of material, then, will ye take to shape peace and freedom withal—that which is enslaved or in that which is free? That which is free. Have ye the flesh enslaved or free? We know not. Know ye not that it is the slave of fever, of gout, of ophthalmia, of dysentery, of tyranny, and fire, and steel, and everything that is mightier than itself? Yea,68 it is enslaved. How, then, can aught that is of the body be free? and how can that be great or precious which by nature is dead, mere earth or mud?

7. So what, exactly, is the good, if it’s not found in these things? Tell us, you, my lord missionary and spy! It’s in the places where you think it isn’t, and where you have no interest in looking for it. If you did want to find it, you would have discovered it within yourselves, instead of searching outside of yourselves or chasing after things that don’t truly belong to you. Look inward; recognize the natural ideas that you already have. How do you define the Good? Peace? Happiness? Freedom? Well then, don’t you naturally think of it as something great, valuable, and untouchable? What kind of material will you use to create peace and freedom—something that is enslaved or something that is free? Something that is free. Is your flesh enslaved or free? We don’t know. Don’t you realize that it’s a slave to fever, gout, eye disease, dysentery, tyranny, fire, steel, and everything stronger than itself? Yes, it is enslaved. Then how can anything of the body be free? And how can that which is fundamentally lifeless, mere dirt or mud, be considered great or valuable?

8. What then? have ye nothing that is free? It may be nothing. And who can compel you to assent to an appearance that is false? No man. And who can compel you not to assent to an appearance that is true? No man. Here, then, ye see that there is in you something that is by nature free. But which of you, except he lay hold of some appearance of the profitable, or of the becoming, can either pursue or avoid, or desire or dislike, or adapt or intend anything? No man. In these things, too, then, ye have something that is unhindered and free. This, miserable men, must ye perfect; this have a care to, in this seek for the Good.

8. What now? Do you have nothing that is free? It might be nothing. And who can force you to agree to a false appearance? No one. And who can force you not to agree to a true appearance? No one. So, you can see that there is something in you that is naturally free. But which of you, unless you attach yourself to some appearance of what is profitable or desirable, can either pursue or avoid, desire or dislike, adapt or plan anything? No one. In these matters, too, you have something that is unrestricted and free. This, miserable people, you must perfect; take care of this, and seek the Good through it.

9. And how is it possible that one can live prosperously who hath nothing; a naked, homeless, hearthless, beggarly man, without servants, without a country? Lo, God hath sent you a man to show you in very deed that it is possible. Behold me, that I have neither country, nor house, nor possessions, nor servants; I sleep on the ground; nor is a wife mine, nor children, nor domicile, but only earth and heaven, and a single cloak. And what is lacking to me? do ever I grieve? do I fear? am I not free? When did any of you see me fail of my pur69suit, or meet with what I had avoided? When did I blame God or man? When did I accuse any man? When did any of you see me of a sullen countenance? How do I meet those whom ye fear and marvel at? Do I not treat them as my slaves? Who that seeth me, but thinketh he beholdeth his king and his lord?

9. How is it possible for someone to live well when they have nothing—a naked, homeless, hearthless, beggar, with no servants and no country? Look, God has sent you a man to show you that it truly is possible. Here I am, without a country, house, possessions, or servants; I sleep on the ground; I have no wife, no children, no home—only the earth and sky and a single cloak. And what am I missing? Do I ever grieve? Do I fear? Am I not free? When have any of you seen me fail in my pursuit or encounter what I've tried to avoid? When have I blamed God or anyone else? When have I accused anyone? When have any of you seen me with a gloomy face? How do I interact with those you fear and marvel at? Do I not treat them like my servants? Who sees me but thinks they see their king and lord?

10. So these are the accents of the Cynic, this his character, this his design. Not so—but it is his bag, and his staff, and his great jaws; and to devour all that is given to him, or store it up, or to reprove out of season every one that he may meet, or to show off his shoulder.9

10. So these are the traits of the Cynic, this is his nature, this is his purpose. Not quite—but it's his belongings, his staff, and his big mouth; and to consume everything that's offered to him, or to hoard it, or to criticize everyone he encounters, or to flaunt his strength.9

11. Dost thou see how thou art about to take in hand so great a matter? Take first a mirror, look upon thy shoulders, mark well thy loins and thighs. Thou art about to enter thy name for the Olympic games, O man; no cold and paltry contest. Nor canst thou then be merely overcome and then depart; but first thou must be shamed in the sight of all the world; and not alone of the Athenians, or Lacedæmonians, or Nicopolitans. And then if thou hast too rashly entered upon the contest thou must be thrashed, and before being thrashed must suffer thirst and scorching heat, and swallow much dust.

11. Do you see how you're about to take on such a big challenge? First, grab a mirror, look at your shoulders, and really check out your lower back and thighs. You’re about to sign up for the Olympic Games, my friend; it’s not some trivial competition. You can't just lose and walk away; first, you have to endure shame in front of everyone, not just the Athenians, Lacedæmonians, or Nicopolitans. And if you’ve jumped into this competition too hastily, you’ll have to take a beating, and before that happens, you'll have to deal with thirst and the scorching heat, and swallow a lot of dust.

12. Consider more closely, know thyself, question thy genius,10 attempt nothing without God; who, if He counsel thee, be sure70 that He wills thee either to be great or to be greatly plagued. For this very agreeable circumstance is linked with the calling of a Cynic; he must be flogged like an ass, and, being flogged, must love those who flog him, as though he were the father or brother of all mankind. Not so, but if one shall flog thee, stand in the midst and shriek out, O Cæsar, what things do I suffer in the Emperor’s peace! Let us take him before the pro-consul. But what is Cæsar to the Cynic? or what is a pro-consul? or what is any other than He that hath sent him hither, and whom he serveth, which is Zeus? Doth he call upon any other than God? Is he not persuaded, whatsoever things he may suffer, that he is being trained and exercised by God? Hercules, when he was exercised by Eurystheus, never deemed himself wretched; but fulfilled courageously all that was laid upon him. But he who shall cry out and bear it hard when he is being trained and exercised by Zeus, is he worthy to bear the scepter of Diogenes? Hear what Diogenes saith, when ill of a fever, to the bystanders: Base souls, will ye not remain? To see the overthrow and combat of athletes, how great a way ye journey to Olympia; and have ye no will to see a combat between a fever and a man? And will such an one presently accuse God who hath sent him, as having used him ill—he who was glorying in his lot, and held71 himself worthy to be a spectacle to the bystanders? For of what shall he accuse Him: that his life is seemly, that he manifests God’s will, that he showeth forth his virtue more brightly? Come, then; and what saith he about death, about pain? How did he compare his own happiness with that of the Great King? nay, he thought rather that there was no comparison. For where there are confusions, and griefs, and fears, and unattained pursuits, and avoidance in vain, and envy and rivalry, can the way to happiness lie there? But where rotten opinions are there must of necessity be all these things.

12. Take a closer look, know yourself, question your abilities, attempt nothing without God; who, if He gives you advice, be sure that He wants you to either be great or to be greatly troubled. This agreeable situation is tied to the calling of a Cynic; he must be beaten like a donkey, and, while being beaten, he must love those who beat him, as if they were the father or brother of all humanity. Not so, but if someone beats you, stand in the middle and shout, O Caesar, what am I suffering in the Emperor’s peace! Let's take him before the pro-consul. But what does Caesar mean to the Cynic? What is a pro-consul? Or anyone other than the one who sent him here, and whom he serves, which is Zeus? Does he call upon anyone other than God? Is he not convinced that whatever he suffers, he is being trained and toughened by God? Hercules, when he was put to the test by Eurystheus, never saw himself as unfortunate; he bravely fulfilled everything that was asked of him. But the one who cries out and complains when being trained and toughened by Zeus, is he worthy to hold the scepter of Diogenes? Listen to what Diogenes said when he was suffering from a fever to those around him: Lowly souls, will you not stay? To see the defeat and struggle of athletes, how far you travel to Olympia; and do you have no desire to witness a battle between a fever and a man? And will such a person soon blame God for sending him, claiming He has treated him poorly—he who was proud of his situation and considered himself worthy of being a spectacle for others? What could he possibly blame Him for: that his life is admirable, that he shows God’s will, that he displays his virtue more brightly? Well then; what does he say about death, about pain? How did he compare his own happiness to that of the Great King? No, he thought there was no comparison whatsoever. For where there are confusions, and sorrows, and fears, and unachievable desires, and vain avoidance, and envy and rivalry, can true happiness be found there? But where there are rotten opinions, all these things must inevitably exist.

13. And the young man having asked whether one that hath fallen ill shall obey, if a friend desire that he will go home with him and be tended: Where, he said, will you show me the friend of a Cynic? For he himself must be even such another, so as to be worthy to be reckoned his friend. A sharer in the scepter and the royalty must he be, and a worthy servant, if he will be worthy of his friendship, as Diogenes was of Antisthenes and Crates of Diogenes. Or seems it so to thee that whosoever shall come to him and bid him hail is his friend? and that he will think him worthy that a Cynic shall go to his house? Thus if it please thee to be a Cynic, bethink thee rather of such a thing as this, and cast about for a dainty dungheap whereon to72 have thy fever; and see that it look away from the north, so that thou be not chilled. But thou seemest to me to wish to retreat into somebody’s house and spend thy time there, and be fed. What hast thou to do with undertaking so great a matter?

13. The young man asked whether someone who is sick should listen to a friend who wants him to go home and be taken care of. He said, “Where will you find a friend for a Cynic? That friend must be just like him to be considered worthy of that friendship. He must share the same values and be a good companion if he wants to earn that friendship, just as Diogenes was to Antisthenes and Crates was to Diogenes. Or do you think that anyone who greets him can be considered a friend? And that he would think it’s appropriate for a Cynic to visit his house? If you want to be a Cynic, you should think about something like this instead. Look for a cozy spot to rest while you're sick and make sure it’s not facing north so you don’t get cold. But it seems to me that you’d rather retreat into someone’s house, hang out there, and be taken care of. What do you have to do with something so serious?

14. But marriage, said he, and the begetting of children,—are these to be received by the Cynic among his chief purposes?

14. But marriage, he said, and having kids—are these supposed to be considered among the main goals of the Cynic?

Give me, said Epictetus, a city of wise men, and perhaps no one will easily come to the Cynic way: for whose sake should he embrace it? However, if we do suppose such a thing, there is nothing to hinder his marrying and begetting children; for his wife will be even such another, and his father-in-law such another, and thus will his children be brought up. But things being as they now are, as it were in order of battle, must not the Cynic be given wholly and undistracted to the service of God, being able to go about among men, and not bound to private duties, nor entangled in ties which, if he transgress, he can no longer preserve the aspect of honesty and goodness; and if he obey them, he hath lost that of the missionary, the spy, the herald of the Gods? For see! he must needs observe a certain conduct towards his father-in-law, and he hath somewhat to render also to the rest of his wife’s kin and to his wife herself. And for the rest, he is shut off from Cynicism by the care for sickness, or means of livelihood.73 For one thing alone, he must have a vessel for warming water for his little child, where he may wash it in the bath; and wool for his wife when she has been delivered, and oil, and a couch, and a drinking cup—already a number of utensils—and other affairs and distractions. Where shall I thenceforth find that king, whose business is the common weal?

"Give me, said Epictetus, a city of wise people, and maybe no one would easily adopt the Cynic lifestyle: for whose benefit would he embrace it? However, if we imagine such a scenario, there’s nothing stopping him from marrying and having children; his wife would be just like him, and his father-in-law the same, and so his children would be raised similarly. But given how things are now, in a sort of battle formation, shouldn't the Cynic be fully dedicated and undistracted in serving God, being able to engage with people without being tied down by personal responsibilities or entangled in relationships which, if he crosses them, he can no longer maintain the appearance of honesty and goodness? And if he follows them, he loses the role of the missionary, the observer, the messenger of the Gods? Because look! He inevitably has to behave in a certain way towards his father-in-law, and he owes something to the rest of his wife’s family and to his wife herself. Plus, he’s obstructed from Cynicism by concerns about illness or the need for income. For one thing, he must have a vessel to warm water for his little child, where he can wash it in the bath; and wool for his wife after she gives birth, and oil, and a couch, and a drinking cup—already quite a few items—and other responsibilities and distractions. Where then will I find that leader, whose focus is on the common good?"73

"Warden of people, with so many responsibilities." Il. ii. 25.

on whom it lies to oversee all men, the married, and parents, and who useth his wife well, and who ill, and who wrangles, and what household is well-ordered, and what not; going about as a physician, and feeling pulses—“thou hast a fever, thou a headache, thou the gout; do thou fast, do thou eat, do thou avoid the bath, thou needest the knife, thou the cautery?” Where is the place for leisure to one who is bound to private duties? Must he not provide raiment for his children? yea, and send them to the schoolmaster with their tablets and writing instruments? and have a bed ready for them, since a man cannot be a Cynic from the womb? Else were it better to cast them away at once than kill them in this way. See, now, to what we have brought our Cynic—how we have taken away his kingship from him! True, but Crates married. Thou speakest of a circumstance that arose74 from love, and adducest a wife who was another Crates.11 But our inquiry is concerning common marriages, and how men may be undistracted; and thus inquiring, we do not find it, in this condition of the world, a purpose of chief concern for a Cynic.

on whom it falls to watch over everyone—the married, parents, and who treats his wife well or poorly, who argues, and which household is well-organized and which isn't; going around like a doctor, checking pulses—“you have a fever, you have a headache, you have gout; you should fast, you should eat, you should avoid the bath, you need surgery, you need a cauterization?” Where does someone who is caught up in personal responsibilities find time to relax? Must he not provide clothes for his children? Yes, and send them off to school with their tablets and writing tools? And have a bed ready for them, since a person can't be a Cynic from birth? Otherwise, it would be better to abandon them altogether than to harm them this way. Look at how we've restricted our Cynic—how we've stripped him of his authority! True, but Crates got married. You refer to a situation that came from love and mention a wife who was another Crates.11 But our question is about ordinary marriages and how men can remain focused; and in this inquiry, we don't find it, in the current state of the world, to be a primary concern for a Cynic.

15. How, then, said he, shall he still be preserving the community? God help thee! Whether do they best serve mankind who fill their own place by bringing into the world two or three screaming children, or those who, as far they may, oversee all men, what they do, how they live, wherewith they concern themselves, and what duties they neglect? And were the Thebans more benefited by as many as left their little children behind, or by Epaminondas, who died childless? And did Priam, who begat fifty good-for-nothing sons, or Danaus, or Æolus,12 better serve the community than Homer? Shall, then, the command of an army or the writing of poems withdraw a man from marriage and fatherhood, and he shall not be thought to have gained nothing for his childlessness, but the kingship of a Cynic shall be not worth what it costs? It may be we do not perceive his greatness, nor do we worthily conceive of the character of Diogenes; but we turn away our eyes to the present Cynics, “watch-dogs of the dining-room,”13 who in nothing resemble those others, save perchance in breaking75 wind; but in no other thing. For else these things would not have moved us, nor should we have marveled if a Cynic will not marry nor beget children. Man! he hath begotten all mankind, he hath all men for his sons, all women for his daughters; so doth he visit all and care for all. Thinkest thou that he is a mere meddler and busybody in rebuking those whom he meets? As a father he doth it, as a brother, and as servant of the Universal Father, which is God.

15. So, how, he asked, can he still be preserving the community? God help you! Who serves humanity better: those who create two or three screaming children, or those who, as much as they can, oversee everyone—what they do, how they live, what they care about, and what responsibilities they ignore? Were the Thebans better off because of those who left their little children behind, or by Epaminondas, who died without kids? Did Priam, who had fifty worthless sons, or Danaus, or Æolus, 12 benefit the community more than Homer? So, should leading an army or writing poems take a man away from marriage and fatherhood, and he’s not seen as losing anything by being childless, while the kingship of a Cynic isn’t worth the price? Maybe we don’t recognize his greatness, nor do we truly appreciate the character of Diogenes; instead, we look away to the current Cynics, the “watch-dogs of the dining room,” 13 who are nothing like the others, except perhaps in passing gas; but in no other way. Otherwise, these things wouldn’t affect us, and we wouldn’t be surprised if a Cynic chooses not to marry or have kids. Man! he has raised all humankind; he sees every man as his son, every woman as his daughter; he visits and cares for all. Do you think he’s just a meddler and troublemaker when he critiques those he encounters? He does it as a father, as a brother, and as a servant of the Universal Father, which is God.

16. If it please thee, ask of me also whether he shall have to do with affairs of public polity? Fool! dost thou seek a greater polity than that in whose affairs he is already concerned? Will it be greater if he come forward among the Athenians to say something about ways or means—he, whose part it is to discourse with all men, Athenians, Corinthians, Romans alike, not concerning means or ways, nor concerning peace or war, but about happiness and unhappiness, about good-fortune and ill-fortune, about slavery and freedom? And of a man that hath his part in so great a polity will you ask me if he shall attend to public affairs? Ask me also if he shall be a ruler; and again I shall say, Thou fool, what rule can be greater than his?

16. If you don’t mind, ask me whether he should get involved in public politics. Fool! Are you looking for a bigger political system than the one he’s already part of? Will it matter more if he steps up among the Athenians to discuss strategies—he, who is meant to talk with everyone, Athenians, Corinthians, Romans alike, not about methods or strategies, nor about peace or war, but about happiness and unhappiness, good fortune and bad fortune, slavery and freedom? And you will ask me if a man who is part of such a significant political system should focus on public affairs? Ask me too if he should be a ruler; and I’ll say again, you fool, what rule could be greater than his?

17. And to such a man there is need also of a certain kind of body. For if he shall appear consumptive, meager, and pale, his witness hath not the same emphasis. Not76 only by showing forth the things of the spirit must he convince foolish men that it is possible, without the things that are admired of them, to be good and wise, but also in his body must he show that plain and simple and open-air living are not mischievous even to the body: “Behold, even of this I am a witness, I and my body.” So Diogenes was wont to do, for he went about radiant with health, and with his very body he turned many to good. But a Cynic that men pity seems to be a beggar—all men turn away from him, all stumble at him. For he must not appear squalid; so that neither in this respect shall he scare men away; but his very austerity should be cleanly and pleasing.

17. A person like that also needs a certain type of body. If he looks sickly, thin, and pale, his testimony won’t have the same weight. He must not only demonstrate spiritual truths to convince foolish people that it’s possible to be good and wise without the things they value, but he should also show that living a plain, simple, and outdoorsy life is not harmful to the body: “Look, I am a living example of this, me and my body.” Diogenes used to do this; he walked around full of health, and his very presence encouraged many to improve themselves. But a Cynic who inspires pity comes off like a beggar—everyone turns away from him, and he causes people to stumble. He must not appear dirty or sloppy; he shouldn’t scare people off in that way either; instead, his austerity should be clean and appealing.

18. Much grace of body, then, must belong to the Cynic, and also quickness of mind, else he is a mere clot of slime and nothing else; for he must be ready and apt to meet all that may befall him. Thus when one said to Diogenes: Thou art that Diogenes who thinkest there are no Gods, he replied, And how may that be, seeing I hold thee hateful to the Gods? And again, when Alexander stood beside him, as he was lying asleep, and said:

18. The Cynic must have a lot of physical grace and a sharp mind, or else he’s just a lump of slime and nothing more; he has to be quick and ready to face whatever comes his way. So, when someone said to Diogenes, You’re the Diogenes who thinks there are no gods, he replied, How can that be, since I find you detestable to the gods? And again, when Alexander stood next to him while he was asleep and said:

“A man of wisdom doesn’t need to sleep all night.”

he answered, ere he was yet awake:

he answered before he was fully awake:

"Guardian of people, burdened with many responsibilities."14

7719. But before all things must his ruling faculty be purer than the sun, else he must needs be a gambler and cheater, who, being himself entangled in some iniquity, will reprove others. For, see how the matter stands: to these kings and tyrants, their spearmen and their arms give the office of reproving men, and the power to punish transgressors, yea, though they themselves be evil; but to the Cynic, instead of arms and spearmen, his conscience giveth this power. When he knows that he has watched and labored for men, and lain down to sleep in purity, and sleep hath left him yet purer; and that his thoughts have been the thoughts of one dear to the Gods, of a servant, and a sharer in the rule of Zeus; and he hath had ever at hand that

7719. But before anything else, his ability to rule must be purer than the sun; otherwise, he will simply be a gambler and a cheat, who, being caught up in his own wrongdoing, will criticize others. Look at the situation: for these kings and tyrants, their soldiers and weapons provide them the authority to judge and punish others, even though they themselves may be corrupt. In contrast, for the Cynic, it’s his conscience that gives him this power instead of weapons and soldiers. When he knows he has worked hard for others, rested in purity, and found his sleep to have left him even purer; and that his thoughts have been in line with those cherished by the Gods, as a servant and a partner in the rule of Zeus; and he has always had close companionship with that

"Guide me, O Zeus, and you, Destiny,15

and,

and,

"If this pleases the Gods, then so be it."

wherefore, then, shall he not take heart to speak boldly to his brothers, to his children, in a word, to all his kin? For this reason, he that is in this state is no meddler or busybody, for when he overlooks human affairs he meddles not with foreign matters, but with his own affairs. Else, name the general a busybody when he overlooks his soldiers, and reviews them, and watches them, and78 punishes the disorderly. But if you have a flat cake under your cloak while you reprove others, I say, get hence rather into a corner, and eat what thou hast stolen—what are other men’s concerns to thee? For what art thou—the bull of the herd? or the queen bee? Show me the tokens of thy supremacy, such as nature hath given her. But if thou art a drone claiming sovereignty over the bees, thinkest thou not that thy fellow-citizens will overthrow thee, as bees do the drones?

So then, why shouldn't he feel confident to speak openly to his brothers, his children, and really to all his family? For this reason, someone in this situation isn't a meddler or busybody; when he focuses on human affairs, he's not interfering in others' matters, but rather dealing with his own. Otherwise, would you call a general a busybody when he oversees his soldiers, reviews them, watches over them, and punishes those who misbehave? But if you have a flat cake hidden under your cloak while criticizing others, I say, you should go find a corner and eat what you've stolen—why should you care about other people's issues? What are you—some kind of bull in the herd? Or the queen bee? Show me the signs of your superiority, like nature has given her. But if you’re just a drone pretending to be in charge of the bees, don't you think your fellow citizens will get rid of you, just like bees do with drones?

20. And truly the Cynic must be so long-suffering as that he shall seem to the multitude insensate and a stone. Him doth none revile, nor smite, nor insult; but his body hath he given to any man to use at will. For he remembers that the worse must needs be vanquished by the better, whereinsoever it is the worse; and the body is worse than the multitude—the weaker than the stronger. Never, then, doth he go down to any contest where it is possible for him to be vanquished, but he yields up all that is not his own, and contends for nothing that is subject to others. But where there is question of the will and the use of appearances, then you shall see how many eyes he hath, so that you may say that compared with him Argus was blind. Is his assent ever hasty; or his desire idle; or his pursuit in vain; or his avoidance unsuccessful; or his aim unfulfilled? doth he ever blame,79 or cringe, or envy? This is his great study and his design; but as regards all other things, he lies on his back and snores, for all is peace. There is no thief of his will, nor tyrant; but of his body? yea; and of his chattels? yea, and also of his authority and his honors. What, then, are these things to him? So when one may seek to make him afraid on account of them—Go hence, he saith to him, and find out little children; it is to these that masks are dreadful, but I know they are made of clay, and that inside them there is nothing.

20. The Cynic must endure so much that he appears to the masses emotionless and like a stone. No one insults, strikes, or belittles him; he allows his body to be used by anyone at their whim. He knows that the worse must eventually be overcome by the better, no matter where the weakness lies; and the body is weaker than the crowd—the weaker than the stronger. Therefore, he never participates in any contest where he might be defeated, instead relinquishing everything that is not his own and fighting for nothing that is owned by others. But when it comes to his will and the manipulation of appearances, you'll see how many eyes he has, making you think that compared to him, Argus was blind. Is his agreement ever rushed? Or his desire pointless? Or his pursuit fruitless? Or his avoidance ineffective? Or his goal unachieved? Does he ever complain, cower, or feel jealous? This is his primary focus and purpose; as for everything else, he lies back and sleeps, for all is serene. There is no thief of his will, nor tyrant; but of his body? Yes; and of his possessions? Yes, and also of his authority and honors. So what do these things mean to him? Therefore, when someone tries to scare him with them—Leave me alone, he says, and go find little kids; it's them that fear masks, but I know they’re made of clay, and there’s nothing inside them.

21. On such a matter art thou now meditating. Therefore, if it please thee, in God’s name delay it yet awhile, and see first what ability thou hast for it. For mark what Hector speaks to Andromache: Go, he saith, rather into the house and weave

21. You’re thinking about this right now. So, if you don’t mind, in God’s name, hold off for a bit and see what skills you have for it first. Pay attention to what Hector says to Andromache: Go, he says, instead into the house and weave

"For war is the concern" "Of every man, and more than anyone else, including myself." Il. vi. 490.

Thus he knew where lay his own ability and her incapacity.

Thus he knew where his own skills were and where she struggled.

End of Volume I.


BOOK II.

CHAPTER I.

on authentic and borrowed beliefs.

1. The master-argument seems to start from propositions such as these:1 There being a mutual contradiction among these three propositions—(1) “Every past event is necessarily true,” and (2) “An impossibility cannot follow a possibility,” and (3) “Things are possible which neither are nor will be true,” Diodorus, perceiving this contradiction, made use of the force of the first two in order to prove that nothing is possible which neither is nor will be true. And, again, one will hold these two, (3) that a thing is possible which neither is nor will be true, and (2) that an impossibility cannot follow from a possibility; but by no means that every past thing is necessarily true, and thus those of the school of Cleanthes appear to think, whom Antipater strongly defended. But some hold the other two, (3) that a thing is possible that neither is nor will be true, and (1) that every past event is necessarily true; but maintain that an impossibility may81 follow from a possibility. But all three it is impossible to hold at once, because of their mutual contradiction.

1. The master argument seems to start from statements like these:1 There’s a mutual contradiction among these three statements—(1) “Every past event is necessarily true,” (2) “An impossibility cannot follow a possibility,” and (3) “There are things that are possible which neither are nor will be true.” Diodorus, recognizing this contradiction, used the first two to argue that nothing is possible that neither is nor will be true. Also, one could accept (3) that a thing can be possible which neither is nor will be true, and (2) that an impossibility cannot come from a possibility; but certainly not (1) that every past thing is necessarily true. This seems to be the viewpoint of the followers of Cleanthes, whom Antipater strongly defended. However, some support the other two—(3) that a thing can be possible which neither is nor will be true, and (1) that every past event is necessarily true; but they argue that an impossibility may81 follow from a possibility. But it’s impossible to hold all three at once because of their mutual contradictions.

2. Now, if any one inquire of me, And which of these dost thou hold? I shall answer him that I do not know, but I have received this account, that Diodorus holds certain of them, and I think the followers of Panthoides and Cleanthes certain others, and those of Chrysippus yet others. And thyself? Nay, it is no affair of mine to try my own thoughts, and to compare and estimate statements, and to form some opinion of my own upon the matter.2 And thus I differ no whit from the grammarians. Who was Hector’s father? Priam. And his brothers? Alexander and Deiphobus. And their mother, who was she? Hecuba. That is the account I have received. From whom? From Homer; and I think Hellanicus has written of them, and maybe others too. And I; what better have I to say about the master-argument? But if I am a vain man, and especially at a banquet, I shall amaze all the company by recounting those who have written on it;—for Chrysippus wrote on it wonderfully in his first book “On Possibilities;” and Cleanthes wrote a separate treatise on it, and so did Archedemus. And Antipater wrote too, not only in his book “On Possibilities,” but also separately in those on the master-argument. Have you not read the work? No! Then82 read it. And what good will it do him to read it? He will become yet more of a babbler and a nuisance than he is now, for what else hath the reading of it done for you? What opinion have you formed for yourself on the matter? Nay, but you will tell us all about Helen, and Priam, and the island of Calypso, that never existed, nor ever will.

2. Now, if anyone asks me, Which of these do you believe? I’ll tell them that I don’t know, but I’ve heard that Diodorus holds certain views, and I think the followers of Panthoides and Cleanthes have some others, and those of Chrysippus have yet others. And what about you? Well, it’s not my job to analyze my own thoughts, compare and evaluate statements, and come up with my own opinion on the matter.2 So I’m not really different from the grammarians. Who was Hector’s father? Priam. And his brothers? Alexander and Deiphobus. And their mother, who was she? Hecuba. That is the account I have. From whom? From Homer; and I think Hellanicus has written about them, and maybe others too. And what better can I say about the main argument? But if I’m feeling boastful, especially at a banquet, I’ll impress everyone by talking about those who have written on it;—because Chrysippus wrote about it brilliantly in his first book “On Possibilities”; and Cleanthes wrote a separate treatise on it, and so did Archedemus. And Antipater wrote as well, not only in his book “On Possibilities,” but also separately on the main argument. Haven’t you read the work? No! Then82 read it. And what good will it do him to read it? He’ll just become even more of a chatterbox and a nuisance than he is now, because what has reading it done for you? What opinion have you formed for yourself on the subject? No, instead you’ll just tell us all about Helen, and Priam, and the island of Calypso, which never existed and never will.

3. And in Homer, indeed, it is no great matter if you have simply mastered the account, and formed no opinion of your own. But in ethics this is even much more often the case than in other matters. Tell me concerning good and evil things! Listen to him, then, with his—

3. In Homer, it doesn’t really matter if you’ve just grasped the story and haven’t formed your own opinion. But in ethics, this happens even more frequently than in other areas. So, tell me about what is good and what is evil! Listen to him, then, with his—

“Me to Ciconia brought the wind from Troy.” Od. ix, 39.

Of things some are good, some evil, and some indifferent. Now the good things are the virtues, and those that have the nature of virtue, and the evil things the vices, and those that have the nature of vice; and the indifferent things3 are between these, as wealth, health, life, death, pleasure, affliction. And how do you know this? Because Hellanicus affirms it in his history of the Egyptians; for as well say this as that Diogenes has it in his Ethics, or Chrysippus, or Cleanthes. But have you tested any of their sayings, and formed an opinion for yourself? Show me how you are wont to bear a storm at sea.83 Do you remember the difference between good and evil when the sail clatters, and some vexatious man comes to you as you are shrieking, and says—

Some things are good, some are bad, and some are neutral. The good things are virtues and things that have the nature of virtue, while the bad things are vices and things that have the nature of vice. The neutral things3 lie in between, like wealth, health, life, death, pleasure, and suffering. So how do you know this? Because Hellanicus confirms it in his history of the Egyptians; it’s just as valid as what Diogenes states in his Ethics, or what Chrysippus or Cleanthes say. But have you tested any of their claims and formed your own opinion? Show me how you handle a storm at sea.83 Do you remember the difference between good and bad when the sail is flapping, and some annoying person approaches you as you're panicking, and says—

——“Tell me, by the Gods, what you were lately saying, Is it any vice to be shipwrecked? Hath it anything of the nature of vice?”

——“Tell me, by the Gods, what you were saying recently. Is being shipwrecked a vice? Does it have any qualities of vice?”

Would you not lay hold of a stick and shake it in his face: Let us alone, man; we are perishing, and you come to mock us! And do you remember the difference if you are accused of something and Cæsar sends for you? If one should come to you when you enter, pale and trembling, and should say, “Why do you tremble, man? what is your business concerned with? Doth Cæsar there within dispense virtue and vice to those who go in to him? Why, you will say; must you too mock me in my calamities?

Would you not grab a stick and shake it in his face: Leave us alone, man; we’re dying, and you come to mock us! And do you remember the difference when you’re accused of something and Caesar sends for you? If someone approached you as you entered, pale and shaking, and said, “Why are you trembling, man? What business do you have? Does Caesar inside hand out virtue and vice to those who go in to see him? Why, you’d say; do you have to mock me in my suffering?

——“Nevertheless, tell me, O Philosopher, why you tremble—is it not merely death that you are in danger of, or imprisonment, or bodily suffering, or exile, or disgrace? What else? Is it any vice? or anything of the nature of vice?”

——“But tell me, Philosopher, why are you shaking? Is it really just death you're afraid of, or is it imprisonment, physical pain, exile, or shame? What else? Is it some kind of vice? Or anything that resembles vice?”

And you will reply somewhat to this effect: Let me alone, man; my own evils are enough for me.

And you'll respond something like this: Leave me alone, man; I have enough problems of my own.

And truly you say well, for your own evils are enough for you; which are meanness, cowardice, and your false pretenses when you sat in the school of philosophy.84 Why did you deck yourself in others’ glory? Why did you call yourself a Stoic?

And honestly, you're right, because your own faults are plenty; they include being petty, cowardly, and pretending to be something you're not when you were in philosophy class.84 Why did you a decorate yourself with the achievements of others? Why did you claim to be a Stoic?

4. Watch yourselves thus in the things that ye do, and ye shall see of what school ye are. And the most of you will be found Epicureans, but some few Peripatetics,4 and those but slack. For where is the proof that ye hold virtue equal to all other things, or indeed superior? Show me a Stoic, if ye have one. Where or how can ye? But persons that repeat the phrases of Stoicism, of these ye can show us any number. And do they repeat those of the Epicureans any worse? and are they not equally accurate in the Peripatetic? Who is, then, a Stoic? As we say that a statue is Pheidian which is wrought according to the art of Pheidias, show me a man that is wrought according to the opinions he utters! Show me one that is sick and yet prosperous, in peril and prosperous, dying and prosperous, in exile and prosperous, in evil repute and prosperous. Show him to me! by the Gods! fain would I see a Stoic! And have ye none that is fully wrought out; then show me at least one that is in hand to be wrought—one that even leaneth towards these things. Do me this favor—grudge not an old man a sight that I have never seen yet. Think ye that I would have you show me the Zeus of Pheidias or the Athene—a work all ivory and gold? Nay; but let one show me a man’s soul that longs to be like-minded85 with God, and to blame neither Gods nor men, and not to fail in any effort or avoidance, and not to be wrathful nor envious, nor jealous, but—for why should I make rounds to say it?—that desires to become a God from a man, and in this body of ours, this corpse, is mindful of his fellowship with Zeus. Show me that man. But ye cannot! Why, then, will ye mock yourselves and cheat others? Why wrap yourselves in others’ garb, and go about, like thieves that steal clothes from the bath, with names and things that in nowise belong to you?

4. Pay attention to what you do, and you’ll see what kind of people you are. Most of you will be found to be Epicureans, and a few will be Peripatetics, but only loosely. Where’s the evidence that you hold virtue in the same regard as everything else, or even higher? Show me a Stoic, if you can find one. Where or how can you? But you can show us plenty of people who quote Stoicism. Do they quote the Epicureans any worse? Aren’t they just as accurate in referencing the Peripatetics? So who really is a Stoic? Just like we call a sculpture Pheidian if it’s made according to Pheidias’s style, show me a person who lives by the ideas they express! Show me someone who is suffering but still thriving, in danger but thriving, dying yet thriving, in exile but thriving, in bad standing but thriving. Show him to me! By the Gods! I’d love to see a Stoic! And if you don’t have anyone who fully embodies this, at least show me someone who is on their way—someone who is even leaning toward these ideals. Do me this favor—don’t deny an old man a sight I’ve never seen before. Do you think I want you to show me Pheidias’s Zeus or Athene, a sculpture made of ivory and gold? No; just show me a person whose soul desires to be aligned with God, who doesn’t blame either Gods or men, who doesn’t give up on any effort or avoidance, and who isn’t angry, envious, or jealous, but—why should I go on?—who wishes to become like a God from just being human, and in this body of ours, this corpse, remembers their connection with Zeus. Show me that person. But you can’t! So why do you mock yourselves and deceive others? Why put on someone else’s clothes and walk around like thieves who’ve stolen garments from a bath, pretending to have names and attributes that don’t belong to you?

5. And now I am your teacher and ye are being taught by me. And I have this aim—to perfect you, that ye be unhindered, uncompelled, unembarrassed, free, prosperous, happy, looking unto God alone in all things great and small. And ye are here to learn these things, and to do them. And wherefore do ye not finish the work, if ye have indeed such an aim as behooves you, and if I, besides the aim, have such ability as behooves me? What is here lacking? When I see a carpenter, and the wood lying beside him, I look for some work. And now, here is the carpenter, here is the wood—what is yet lacking? Is the thing such as cannot be taught? It can. Is it, then, not in our power? Yea, this alone of all things is. Wealth is not in our power, nor health, nor repute, nor any other thing, save only the right use of appearances. This alone is by86 nature unhindered; this alone is unembarrassed. Wherefore, then, will ye not make an end? Tell me the reason. For either the fault lies in me, or in you, or in the nature of the thing. But the thing itself is possible, and indeed the only thing that is in our power. It remains that I am to blame, or else ye are; or, to speak more truly, both of us. What will ye, then? Let us at length begin to entertain such a purpose among us, and let the past be past. Only let us make a beginning: trust in me, and ye shall see.

5. And now I am your teacher, and you are being taught by me. My goal is to help you become perfect, so that you’re unburdened, unforced, unashamed, free, prosperous, happy, and focused solely on God in everything, big and small. You’re here to learn these things and to put them into practice. So why haven’t you completed the work if you truly have such a worthwhile goal, and if I have the ability to help you achieve it? What’s missing here? When I see a carpenter with wood next to him, I expect some craftsmanship. And now, here’s the carpenter and the wood—what’s still lacking? Is this something that can’t be taught? It can be taught. Is it not in our power? Yes, this is the only thing that truly is. Wealth isn’t in our power, nor health, nor reputation, nor anything else, but the proper use of appearances is. This alone is naturally unburdened and unashamed. So why won’t you finish this? Tell me why. The fault must lie either with me, or with you, or with the nature of the task itself. But what we’re discussing is possible and indeed the only thing that's in our control. It seems I could be to blame, or you could be; or, to be more accurate, perhaps we both are. What do you say? Let’s finally commit to this goal together and leave the past behind. Just let’s make a start: trust in me, and you’ll see.


CHAPTER II.

the game of life.

1. This above all is the task of Nature—to bind and harmonize together the force of the appearances of the Right and of the Useful.

1. This above all is Nature's job—to unite and balance the power of how things seem to be Right and Useful.

2. Things are indifferent, but the uses of them are not indifferent. How, then, shall one preserve at once both a steadfast and tranquil mind, and also carefulness of things, that he be not heedless or slovenly? If he take the example of dice players. The numbers are indifferent, the dice are indifferent. How can I tell what may be thrown up? But carefully and skillfully to make use of what is thrown, that is where87 my proper business begins. And this is the great task of life also, to discern things and divide them, and say, “Outward things are not in my power; to will is in my power. Where shall I seek the Good, and where the Evil? Within me—in all that is my own.” But of all that is alien to thee call nothing good nor evil, nor profitable nor hurtful, nor any such term as these.

2. Things themselves don't matter, but how we use them does. So, how can we maintain a calm and steady mind while also being mindful of our actions, avoiding carelessness or sloppiness? If we look at dice players as an example: the numbers are just numbers, and the dice are just dice. I can't predict the outcome. But carefully and skillfully using whatever results come up—that's where87 my true work begins. This is also the main task of life: to recognize and differentiate things, and to say, "External factors aren’t in my control; my intentions are within my control. Where should I look for Good and Evil? Inside myself—in everything that belongs to me." But for everything that's not yours, don’t label it as good or evil, useful or harmful, or anything like that.

3. What then? should we be careless of such things? In no wise. For this, again, is a vice in the Will, and thus contrary to Nature. But be at once careful, because the use of things is not indifferent, and steadfast and tranquil because the things themselves are. For where there is aught that concerns me, there none can hinder or compel me; and in those things where I am hindered or compelled the attainment is not in my power, and is neither good nor evil; but my use of the event is either evil or good, and this is in my power. And hard it is, indeed, to mingle and reconcile together the carefulness of one whom outward things affect, with the steadfastness of him who regards them not. But impossible, it is not; and if it is, it is impossible to be happy.

3. So what should we do? Should we just ignore these things? Absolutely not. That would be a flaw in our will and goes against human nature. Instead, we need to be mindful because how we use things matters, and we should remain steady and calm because the things themselves are. Where something impacts me, no one can truly stop or force me; and in those situations where I'm held back or pressured, achieving something isn't in my control and isn't inherently good or bad; rather, how I respond to the situation can be good or bad, and that's up to me. It’s definitely challenging to balance the caution of someone affected by external things with the steadiness of someone who isn’t bothered by them. But it’s not impossible; and if it were, then happiness would be impossible too.

4. Give me one man that cares how he shall do anything—that thinks not of the gaining of the thing, but thinks of his own energy.

4. Show me one man who cares about how he does anything—who doesn’t focus on just achieving the goal, but considers his own effort instead.

5. Chrysippus, therefore, said well—“As long as future things are hidden from me, I88 hold always by whatever state is the most favorable for gaining the things that are according to Nature; for God Himself gave it to me to make such choice. But if I knew that it were now ordained for me to be sick, I would even move to it of myself. For the foot, too, if it had intelligence, would move of itself to be mired.”

5. Chrysippus, therefore, put it well—“As long as I can’t see what’s coming, I88 will always stick with whatever option is best for getting what’s in line with Nature; for God Himself gave me the power to make that choice. But if I knew that I was meant to be sick right now, I would accept it willingly. Just like a foot, if it were aware, would willingly step into the mud.”

6. For to what end, think you, are ears of corn produced? Is it not that they may become dry and parched? And the reason they are parched, is it not that they may be reaped? for it is not to exist for themselves alone that they come into the world. If, then, they had perception would it be proper for them to pray that they should never be reaped? since never to be reaped is for ears of corn a curse. So understand that for men it is a curse not to die, just as not to be ripened and not to be reaped. But we, since we are both the things to be reaped and are also conscious that we shall be reaped, have indignation thereat. For we know not what we are, nor have we studied what concerns humanity as those that have the care of horses study what concerns them. But Chrysantas, when just about to smite the enemy, forbore on hearing the trumpet sounding his recall; so much better did it seem to him to obey the commander’s order than to do his own will. But of us not one will follow with docility the summons even of necessity, but weeping and groaning the89 things that we suffer, we suffer, calling them our doom.1 What doom, man? If by doom you mean that which is doomed to happen to us, then we are doomed in all things. But if only our afflictions are to be called doom, then what affliction is it that that which has come into being should perish? But we perish by the sword, or the wheel, or the sea, or the tile of a roof, or a tyrant. What matters it by what road thou goest down into Hades? they are all equal. But if thou wilt hear the truth, the way the tyrant sends thee is the shortest. Never did a tyrant cut a man’s throat in six months, but a fever will often be a year killing him. All these things are but noise, and a clatter of empty names.

6. What do you think is the purpose of ears of corn? Isn't it so they can dry out and become parched? And the reason they dry out is to be harvested, because they don’t exist just for themselves. If they could think, would it be right for them to wish never to be harvested? Because for ears of corn, not being harvested is a curse. So understand that for humans, not dying is also a curse, just like not ripening and not being harvested. Yet we, being both the harvest and knowing we will be harvested, feel anger about it. We don’t really know what we are, nor do we study what it means to be human like those who care for horses study their needs. But Chrysantas, when he was about to strike the enemy, held back when he heard the trumpet signaling his recall; he thought it was better to obey the commander than to follow his own desire. But none of us will willingly answer even the call of necessity, instead we weep and groan about our suffering, calling it our fate.89 What fate, man? If by fate you mean what is destined to happen to us, then we are destined in everything. But if only our suffering is called fate, then why should it be considered a misfortune that things that come into existence must eventually cease to be? We meet our end by sword, wheel, sea, falling roof tiles, or a tyrant. What does it matter how you go down to Hades? They’re all the same. But if you want to hear the truth, the path set by the tyrant is the quickest. A tyrant will never take six months to kill a man, but a fever can often drag on for a year. All these things are just noise, a clamor of empty words.

7. But let us do as in setting out on a voyage. What is it possible for me to do? This—to choose the captain, crew, the day, the opportunity. Then a tempest has burst upon us; but what doth it concern me? I have left nothing undone that was mine to do; the problem is now another’s, to wit, the captain’s. But now the ship is sinking! and what have I to do? I do only what I am able—drown without terror and screaming and accusing of God, but knowing that that which has come into being must also perish. For I am no Immortal, but a man, a part of the sum of things as an hour is of the day. Like the hour, I must arrive, and, like the hour, pass away. What, then, can90 it matter to me how I pass away—whether by drowning or by a fever? for pass I must, even by some such thing. Now, this is what you shall see done by skillful ball-players. None careth for the ball as it were a thing good or bad; but only about throwing it and catching it. In this, then, there is rule, in this art, quickness, judgment: so that I may fail of catching the ball, even if I spread out my lap, and another, if I throw it, may catch it. But if I am anxious and nervous as I catch and throw, what kind of play is this? how shall one be steady? how shall he observe the order of the game? One will call “Throw,” “Do not throw,” and another, “You have thrown once.” But this is strife and not play.

7. But let’s approach this like we’re starting a journey. What can I actually do? This—pick the captain, the crew, the day, the right moment. Then a storm hits us; but what does it matter to me? I’ve done everything I could do; now the issue belongs to someone else, namely, the captain. But now the ship is sinking! What am I supposed to do? I can only do what I’m capable of—drown without panic or yelling at God, while knowing that everything that comes into existence must also fade away. Because I’m not immortal, but human, just a part of everything, like an hour is a part of the day. Like the hour, I must arrive and, like the hour, eventually pass away. So why should it matter to me how I go—whether by drowning or by fever? I must go, one way or another. Now, this is how skilled players handle a ball. Nobody cares about the ball as if it were good or bad; they only care about throwing it and catching it. In this, there’s skill, quickness, judgment: I might drop the ball even if I’m ready, and someone else might catch it, even if I throw it. But if I’m anxious and nervous while catching and throwing, what kind of game is that? How can one stay calm? How can they follow the rules of the game? Someone will shout “Throw,” another “Don’t throw,” and someone else will say, “You’ve already thrown once.” But that’s conflict, not play.

8. Thus Socrates knew how to play ball. How? When he jested in the court of justice. “Tell me, Anytus,” he said, “how say you that I believe there is no God? The Dæmons, who are they, think you? Are they not sons of God, or a mixed nature between Gods and men?” And when this was admitted—“Who, do you think, can hold that mules exist, but not asses?”2 And thus he played with the ball. And what was the ball that was there thrown about among them? Life, chains, exile, a draught of poison, to be torn from a wife, to leave children orphans. These were the things among them that they played withal; yet none the less did he play, and flung the ball with91 proper grace and measure. And so should we do also, having the carefulness of the most zealous players, and yet indifference, as were it merely about a ball.

8. So Socrates knew how to play the game. How? When he joked in the courtroom. “Tell me, Anytus,” he said, “how can you say that I believe there is no God? The Dæmons, who do you think they are? Aren't they the children of God or a mix between gods and humans?” And when this was agreed upon—“Who, in your opinion, can believe that mules exist but not donkeys?”2 And that's how he played the game. And what was the game they were tossing around? Life, chains, exile, a cup of poison, being separated from a wife, leaving children as orphans. These were the things they played with; yet still, he played, tossing the ball with91 poise and balance. And we should do the same, being as careful as the most passionate players while also being indifferent, as if it was just about a ball.


CHAPTER III.

things are what they are.

1. Each thing that allures the mind or offers an advantage or is loved by you, remember to speak of it as it is, from the smallest things upward. If you love an earthen jar, then think, I love an earthen jar, for so shall you not be troubled when it breaks. And when you kiss your little child, or wife, think, I kiss a mortal; and so shall you not be troubled when they die.

1. Every thing that attracts your mind or provides a benefit or is cherished by you, remember to acknowledge it for what it is, starting from the smallest things. If you love a clay pot, then think, I love a clay pot, and you won't feel upset when it breaks. And when you kiss your little child or spouse, think, I kiss a mortal; this way, you won't be disturbed when they pass away.

2. When you are about to take in hand some action, bethink you what it is that you are about to do. If you go to the bath, represent to yourself all that takes place there—the squirting of water, the slapping, the scolding, the pilfering; and then shall you take the matter in hand more safely, saying straightway: I desire to be bathed, and maintain my purpose according to Nature. And even so with each and every action. For thus, if aught should occur to cross you in your bathing, this thought shall be straightway at hand: But not this alone did I desire; but also to maintain my purpose according to92 Nature. And I shall not maintain it if I have indignation at what happens here.

2. Before you take any action, stop and think about what you’re about to do. If you’re going to the bath, imagine everything that happens there—the splashing water, the slapping, the scolding, the stealing; then you’ll approach the situation more safely, saying right away: I want to be bathed and stay true to my purpose according to Nature. The same goes for every action. This way, if anything happens to interrupt your bathing, you'll immediately remember: But I didn’t just want this; I also wanted to stick to my purpose according to92Nature. And I won't be able to do that if I get upset about what happens here.

3. The first difference between the vulgar man and the philosopher: The one saith, Woe is me for my child, my brother, woe for my father; but the other, if ever he shall be compelled to say, Woe is me, checks himself, and saith, for myself. For nothing that the Will willeth not can hinder or hurt the Will, but itself only can hurt itself. If then, indeed, we too incline to this, that when we are afflicted we accuse ourselves, and recollect that nothing else than Opinion can cause us any trouble or unsettlement, I swear by all the Gods we have advanced! But as it is, we have from the beginning traveled a different road. While we are still children, if haply we stumbled as we were gaping about, the nurse did not chide us, but beat the stone. For what had the stone done? Ought it to have moved out of the way for your child’s folly? Again, if we find nothing to eat after coming from the bath, never doth the tutor check our desire, but he beats the cook. Man, we did not set thee to be a tutor of the cook, but of our child—him shall you train, him improve. And thus, even when full-grown, we appear as children. For a child in music is he who hath not learned music, and in letters, one who hath not learned letters, and in life, one undisciplined in philosophy.

3. The first difference between an average person and a philosopher: The average person says, Woe is me for my child, my brother, woe for my father; but the philosopher, if he ever has to say Woe is me, corrects himself and says, for myself. Because nothing that the Will does not wish for can impede or hurt the Will; only the Will itself can harm itself. If we can also come to this understanding, that when we are in pain we blame ourselves and remember that only Opinion can cause us any distress or unrest, I swear by all the gods, we have made progress! But as it stands, we have taken a different path from the start. When we were still kids, if we stumbled while distracted, the nurse didn't scold us but punished the stone. What did the stone do? Should it have moved out of the way for a child’s clumsiness? Moreover, if we come back from the bath and find nothing to eat, the tutor doesn’t correct our hunger; he punishes the cook. Man, we didn’t appoint you to be the cook’s tutor but to train our child—him you should guide, him you should improve. And so, even as adults, we still act like children. A child in music is someone who hasn't learned music, someone in reading is one who hasn’t learned to read, and someone in life is one who hasn't been educated in philosophy.

934. It is not things, but the opinions about the things, that trouble mankind. Thus Death is nothing terrible; if it were so, it would have appeared so to Socrates. But the opinion we have about Death, that it is terrible, that it is wherein the terror lieth. When, therefore, we are hindered or troubled or grieved, never let us blame any other than ourselves; that is to say, our opinions. A man undisciplined in philosophy blames others in matters in which he fares ill; one who begins to be disciplined blames himself, one who is disciplined, neither others nor himself.

934. It’s not the things themselves that bother people, but the way we see those things. So, death isn’t really something to fear; if it were, Socrates wouldn’t have seen it that way. The real fear comes from our belief that death is something awful. When we feel blocked, upset, or hurt, we should never blame anyone but ourselves; meaning, our own opinions. A person who doesn’t understand philosophy blames others when things go wrong; someone who is starting to learn will blame themselves, while a truly knowledgeable person blames neither themselves nor anyone else.

5. Be not elated in mind at any superiority that is not of yourself. If your horse were elated and should say, I am beautiful, that would be tolerable. But when you are elated and say, I have a beautiful horse, know that it is at an excellence in your horse that you are elated. What, then, is your own? This—to make use of the appearances. So that when you deal according to Nature in the use of appearances, then shall you be elated, for you will then be elated at an excellence that is your own.

5. Don’t get too proud of any superiority that isn’t yours. If your horse were to boast and say, I am beautiful, that would be understandable. But when you get proud and say, I have a beautiful horse, realize that it’s your horse’s beauty you’re taking pride in. So, what do you have that’s truly yours? This: to make good use of appearances. When you act in harmony with nature by using appearances wisely, then you can feel proud, because you’ll be celebrating an excellence that belongs to you.


CHAPTER IV.

three steps to perfection.

1. There are three divisions of Philosophy wherein a man must exercise himself who would be wise and good.1

1. There are three branches of philosophy that a person should engage with if they want to be wise and good.1

The first concerns his pursuit and avoidance, so that he may not fail of aught that he would attain, nor fall into aught that he would avoid.

The first deals with his pursuit and avoidance, so that he doesn’t miss anything he wants to achieve, nor get caught up in anything he wants to avoid.

The second concerns his desires and aversions, and, generally, all that it becomes a man to be, so that he bear himself orderly and prudently and not heedlessly.

The second involves his wants and dislikes, and, overall, everything that it takes for a man to conduct himself in an organized and wise manner, rather than carelessly.

The third is that which concerns security from delusion and hasty apprehension, and, generally, the assenting to appearances.

The third is about protecting against false beliefs and rash judgments, and, in general, agreeing with what seems to be true.

Of these the chief and most urgent is that which hath to do with the passions,2 for the passions arise in no other way than by our failing in endeavor to attain or to avoid something. This it is which brings in troubles and tumults and ill-luck and misfortune, that is the cause of griefs and lamentations and envies, that makes envious and jealous men; by which things we become unable even to hear the doctrines of reason.

Of these, the most important and urgent issue is related to our emotions,2 because emotions arise when we fail to achieve or avoid something. This leads to struggles, chaos, bad luck, and misfortune. It causes sorrow, lamenting, and jealousy, making people envious and resentful. Because of these feelings, we become unable to even listen to rational ideas.

The second concerns that which is becoming to a man; for I must not be passionless,2 95 like a statue, but maintain all relations natural and acquired, as a religious being, as a son, as a brother, as a father, as a citizen.

The second concern is about what suits a man; for I shouldn’t be without passion,2 95 like a statue, but I should keep all my natural and learned relationships, as a spiritual person, as a son, as a brother, as a father, and as a citizen.

The third is that which concerns men as soon as they are making advance in philosophy, which provides for the security of the two others; so that not even in dreams may any appearance that approacheth us pass untested, nor in wine, nor in ill-humors. This, a man may say, is beyond us. But the philosophers of this day, passing by the first and second parts of philosophy, occupy themselves in the third, caviling, and arguing by questions, and constructing hypotheses and fallacies. For, they say, when dealing with these subjects a man must guard himself from delusion. Who must? The wise and good man.

The third aspect relates to men as they begin to progress in philosophy, which ensures the safety of the first two parts; so that not even in dreams should any thought that approaches us go unexamined, whether it's through wine or negative emotions. One might say that this is beyond our reach. However, today's philosophers focus primarily on this third part, nitpicking and debating through questions, creating hypotheses and fallacies. They argue that when tackling these topics, one must be vigilant against deception. Who needs to be careful? The wise and good person.

2. And this security is all you lack, then; the rest you have wrought out already? You are not to be imposed upon by money? and if you see a fair girl you can hold out against the appearance? and if your neighbor inherits a legacy you are not envious? there is now, in short, nothing lacking to you except to confirm what you have? Wretch! these very things dost thou hear in fear and anxiety lest some one may despise thee, and inquiring what men say about thee. And if some one come and tell you that when it was discussed who was the best of the philosophers, one present said, Such a96 one is the greatest philosopher, your little soul will grow up from a finger’s breadth to two cubits. And if another who was present said, Nothing of the kind; it is not worth while to listen to him; for what does he know? he has made a beginning in philosophy and no more, you are amazed, you grow pale, and straightway you cry out, I will show him who I am, that I am a great philosopher.

2. So, this is all you need for security, right? You've already achieved everything else? Money doesn’t control you? And if you see a beautiful girl, you can resist the temptation? And if your neighbor gets an inheritance, you’re not jealous? In short, there’s nothing missing for you except to affirm what you already have? Poor thing! You hear these very things with fear and anxiety, worried that someone might look down on you, and constantly checking what others say about you. And if someone comes and tells you that during a discussion about who the best philosopher is, one person said, Such a96 one is the greatest philosopher, your little ego will swell from a tiny size to a much bigger one. But if another person present says, Not at all; it’s not worth listening to him; what does he know? He’s just started studying philosophy and nothing more, you’ll be shocked, turn pale, and immediately shout, I’ll prove who I am; I’m a great philosopher.

Out of these very things it is seen what you are; why do you desire to show it by any others?

Out of these very things, it's clear who you are; why do you want to prove it by any other means?


CHAPTER V.

that a man can be both brave and afraid.

1. To some it may perchance seem a paradox, this axiom of the philosophers; yet let us make the best inquiry we can if it be true that it is possible to do all things at once with fearfulness and with boldness. For fearfulness seemeth in a manner contrary to boldness, and contraries can never co-exist. But that which to many seemeth a paradox in this matter seems to me to stand somehow thus: If we affirmed that both fearfulness and boldness could be used in the very same things, they would justly accuse us that we were reconciling what is irreconcilable. But now, what is there so strange in this saying? For if it is sound, what hath been97 so often both affirmed and demonstrated, that the essence of the Good is in the use of appearances, and even so of the Evil, and things uncontrollable by the Will have the nature neither of good nor of evil, what paradox do the philosophers affirm if they say that in things uncontrollable by the Will, then be boldness thy part, and in things subject to the Will, fearfulness. For if Evil lie in an evil Will, then in these things alone is it right to use fearfulness. And if things uncontrollable by the Will, and that are not in our power, are nothing to us, then in these things we should use boldness. And thus shall we be at one time both fearful and bold—yea, and bold even through our fearfulness. For through being fearful in things that are veritably evil it comes that we shall be bold in those that are not so.

1. To some, this idea from philosophers might seem like a contradiction; however, let's explore whether it’s truly possible to experience both fear and courage at the same time. Fear seems to be the opposite of courage, and opposites can’t exist together. But what many see as a contradiction in this idea appears to me to be something like this: If we claim that both fear and courage can be applied to the same situations, people would rightly criticize us for trying to reconcile what can’t be reconciled. But what’s so strange about this statement? If it’s true, then what has been97 frequently stated and proven—that the essence of Good involves how we perceive things, and the same goes for Evil, while things beyond our control are neither good nor evil—what contradiction do the philosophers suggest when they say that in situations beyond our control, we should be courageous, and in situations within our control, we should be fearful? If Evil stems from an evil intent, then we should only be fearful in these cases. And if things that we cannot control are irrelevant to us, then we should be courageous in those situations. Thus, we can be both fearful and bold at the same time—indeed, we can even be courageous in our fear. By fearing truly evil situations, we can gather courage for those that are not.

2. But we, on the contrary, fall victims as deer do. When these are terrified and fly from the scares, whither do they turn and to what do they retreat as a refuge? To the nets: and thus they perish, confusing things to fear and things to be bold about. And thus do we also. Where do we employ fear? In things beyond our Will. And wherein do we act boldly, as were there nothing to dread? In things subject to the Will. To be beguiled, then, or to be rash, or to do some shameless act, or with base greed to pursue some object—these things concern us no whit if we may only hit the mark in98 things beyond the Will. But where death is, or exile, or suffering, or evil repute, there we run away, there we are scared. Therefore, as it were to be looked for in those who are astray in the things of greatest moment, we work out our natural boldness into swaggering, abandonment, rashness, shamelessness; and our natural fearfulness and shamefastness into cowardice and meanness, full of terror and trouble. For if one should transfer his fearfulness to the realm of the Will, and the works thereof, straightway, together with the intention of fearing to do wrong, he shall have it in his power to avoid doing it; but if he use it in things out of our own power and beyond the Will, then striving to avoid things that are in others’ power, he shall of necessity be terrified and unsettled and troubled. For death is not fearful, nor pain, but the fear of pain or death. And thus we praise him1 who said:

2. But we, on the other hand, become victims like frightened deer. When they are scared and run away, where do they turn for safety? Into the very traps that lead to their doom, mistaking what they should fear for what they should confront. We do the same. Where do we apply our fear? To things that are out of our control. And where do we act boldly, as if there's nothing to worry about? In areas we can control. To be deceived, act recklessly, commit shameless acts, or pursue something out of greed—none of this bothers us as long as we can achieve our goals beyond our control. But when faced with death, exile, suffering, or bad reputation, we flee in fear. So, as you might expect from those lost in significant matters, we turn our natural courage into arrogance, recklessness, and shamelessness; and our natural fear and sense of shame into cowardice and meanness, overwhelmed by terror and distress. If someone were to redirect their fear to matters within their control and to their actions, then, along with the intention to avoid wrongdoing, they would be able to steer clear of it. But if they focus their fear on things outside their power, trying to evade what others control, they will inevitably become anxious and unsettled. Because death itself isn't frightening, nor is pain, but rather the fear of pain or death. And so we commend the one who said:

“Fear not to die, but fear a coward’s death.”

"Don't be afraid of dying, but be afraid of dying like a coward."

3. It is right, then, that we should turn our boldness against death, and our fearfulness against the fear of death. But now we do the contrary: death we flee from, but as to the state of our opinion about death we are negligent, heedless, indifferent. These things Socrates did well to call bugbears. For as to children, through their inexpe99rience, ugly masks appear terrible and fearful; so we are somewhat in the same way moved towards the affairs of life, for no other cause than as children are affected by these bugbears. For what is a child? Ignorance. What is a child? That which has never learned. For when he knows these things he is nowise inferior to us. What is death? A bugbear. Turn it round; examine it: see, it does not bite. Now or later that which is body must be parted from that which is spirit, as formerly it was parted. Why, then, hast thou indignation if it be now? for if it be not now, it will be later. And wherefore? That the cycle of the world may be fulfilled; for it hath need of a present and of a future and of a past. What is pain? A bugbear. Turn it about and examine it. This poor body is moved harshly, then again softly. If thou hast no advantage thereof, the door is open;2 if thou hast, then bear it. For in all events it is right that the door should stand open, and so have we no distress.

3. So, it makes sense that we should bravely confront death and let our fearfulness be directed towards our fear of death. But right now, we do the opposite: we run away from death, while being careless, careless, and indifferent about our thoughts on death. Socrates was right to call these things scare tactics. Just like children, who find ugly masks scary due to their lack of experience, we react similarly to life's challenges, for no other reason than our childish reactions to these fears. What is a child? Ignorance. What is a child? Something that hasn’t learned yet. When a child understands, they're not any less capable than we are. What is death? A scare tactic. Turn it over, examine it: look, it doesn’t bite. Eventually, what is physical must separate from what is spiritual, just as it has done before. So why are you upset if it happens now? If it doesn’t happen now, it will happen later. And why? So that the cycle of the world can be completed; it needs a present, a future, and a past. What is pain? A scare tactic. Turn it around and look closely. This poor body feels rough, then smooth again. If you don’t gain anything from it, the exit is open; if you do, then endure it. In any case, it’s right for the exit to remain open, so we shouldn’t suffer.

4. Shall I, then, exist no longer? Nay, thou shalt exist, but as something else, whereof the universe hath now need.3 For neither didst thou choose thine own time to come into existence, but when the universe had need of thee.

4. Am I to not exist anymore? No, you will exist, but as something different, which the universe now needs.3 For you did not choose your own time to come into being, but rather when the universe required you.

5. What, then, is the fruit of these opinions? That which ought to be the fairest and comeliest to those who have been truly100 taught,—tranquillity, courage, and freedom. For concerning these things, the multitude are not to be believed which say that those only should be taught who are freemen, but the philosophers rather, which say that those only are free who have been taught. How is this? It is thus—Is freedom anything else than the power to live as we choose? Nothing else. Do ye choose, then, to live in sin? We do not choose it. None, therefore, that fears or grieves or is anxious is free; but whosoever is released from griefs and fears and anxieties is by that very thing released from slavery. How, then, shall we still believe you, most excellent legislators, when ye say, “We permit none to be taught, save freemen?”4 for the philosophers say, “We permit none to be free save those who have been taught”—that is, God permits it not. So, when a man turns round his slave before the Prætor,5 has he done nothing? He has done something. And what? He has turned round his slave before the Prætor. Nothing else at all? Yea, this too—he must pay for him the tax of the twentieth. What then? has the man thus treated not gained his freedom? No more than he has gained tranquillity of mind. For thou, who art able to emancipate others, hast thou no master? is money not thy master, or lust, or a tyrant, or some friend of a tyrant? Why, then, dost thou tremble when thou art to meet with some101 affliction in this kind? And therefore I say oftentimes, be these things your study, be these things ever at your hand, wherein ye should be bold and wherein fearful; bold in things beyond the Will, fearful in things subject to the Will.

5. So, what’s the outcome of these beliefs? The things that should be the most beautiful and appealing to those who have truly been taught—peace of mind, courage, and freedom. Regarding these matters, we shouldn’t trust the masses who say that only free people should be educated, but rather the philosophers who argue that only those who are educated are truly free. How is this so? Well, is freedom anything other than the ability to live as we choose? Nothing else. Do you choose to live in sin? No, we don’t choose that. Therefore, anyone who fears, grieves, or feels anxious isn’t free; but anyone who has been freed from grief, fear, and anxiety is, in that very act, freed from slavery. How, then, can we still believe you, esteemed lawmakers, when you say, “We allow only free people to be educated?”4 because philosophers argue, “We allow no one to be free except those who have been educated”—in other words, it’s not permitted by God. So, when a man turns his slave around before the Prætor,5 has he done nothing? He has done something. And what is that? He has turned his slave around before the Prætor. Is that all? Yes, he must also pay the tax of the twentieth for him. So, what then? Has that man not gained his freedom? No more than he has attained peace of mind. For you, who can free others, do you have no master? Is money not your master, or desire, or a tyrant, or some friend of a tyrant? Why, then, do you tremble when facing some form of hardship? Therefore, I often say, make these things your focus; keep these matters close at hand, knowing where you should be bold and where you should be fearful—bold in things beyond your control, fearful in things that are within your control.


CHAPTER VI.1

the wise person's fear and the fool's.

1. The appearances by which the mind of man is smitten with the first aspect of a thing as it approaches the soul, are not matters of the will, nor can we control them; but by a certain force of their own the objects which we have to comprehend are borne in upon us. But that ratification of them, which we name assent, whereby the appearances are comprehended and judged, these are voluntary, and are done by human choice. Wherefore at a sound from the heavens, or from the downfall of something, or some signal of danger, or anything else of this kind, it must needs be that the soul of the philosopher too shall be somewhat moved, and he shall shrink and grow pale; not through any opinion of evil that he has formed, but through certain rapid and unconsidered motions that forestall the office of the mind and reason. Soon, however, that philosopher doth not approve the ap102pearances to be truly objects of terror to his soul, that is to say, he assents not to them nor ratifies them; but he rejects them, and casts them out; nor doth there seem to be in them anything that he should fear. But in this, say the philosophers, doth the wise man differ from the fool,—that the fool thinks the appearances to be in truth even so harsh and rough as they seemed at their first shock upon the soul; and taking them, as at first, to be rightly dreaded, he thus ratifies and approves them by his assent. The philosopher, however, though for a short time his color and countenance have been changed, doth not then assent, but he retains in its steadfastness and vigor the opinion he ever had of these appearances, that they are in no wise to be feared, but affright only by a false show and empty threat.

1. The initial impressions that strike a person's mind as something approaches are not under our control; we can't choose them. Instead, these objects come to us with an inherent force. However, the approval of these impressions, which we call assent, where we understand and evaluate them, is voluntary and a matter of personal choice. Thus, when there’s a sound from the heavens, or the collapse of something, or a sign of danger, the philosopher's soul will inevitably react to some extent, causing him to flinch and turn pale; but this reaction isn't due to a formed opinion of evil, rather it's a series of quick, unthoughtful reactions that take over before the mind and reason can intervene. Soon after, though, the philosopher does not accept these impressions as truly terrifying to his soul; in other words, he does not give his assent to them or validate them; instead, he rejects and dismisses them, finding nothing in them to fear. According to philosophers, this is where the wise man differs from the fool—the fool believes the impressions are as harsh and threatening as they first appeared. He considers them to be genuinely frightening and thus validates and accepts them. The philosopher, on the other hand, while his face may have changed momentarily, does not give his assent; instead, he maintains a steadfast and robust opinion that these impressions are not to be feared, but only frighten through false appearances and empty threats.

2. Such as is a dish of water, such is the soul; such as is the ray of light that falleth on the same, such are the appearances. When the water is moved, then the ray seemeth also to be moved; but it is not moved. And thus when a man’s mind is darkened and dizzy, it is not doctrines and virtues that are confounded, but the spirit on which they are impressed. And if that is restored, so are they.2

2. Just like a dish of water, the soul reflects what it receives; just like the ray of light that shines on it, the appearances are shaped too. When the water is stirred, it looks like the ray is moving, but it’s really not. Similarly, when a person’s mind is clouded and confused, it’s not the beliefs and virtues that are mixed up, but the spirit they are applied to. And if that spirit is restored, so are the beliefs and virtues.2


CHAPTER VII.

true and false appearances.

1. Appearances exist for us in four ways. Either things appear even as they are; or having no existence, neither do they appear to have it; or they exist, and appear not; or they exist not, and yet appear. So, in all these cases, to hit the mark is the work of him who hath been taught in philosophy.

1. Looks come to us in four ways. Things might appear exactly as they are; or if they don’t exist, they don’t appear to exist either; or they might exist but not appear; or they might not exist and yet still seem to. So, in all these situations, getting it right is the job of someone who has been educated in philosophy.

2. But whatever it be that afflicts us, it is to that thing that the remedy is to be applied. If it is the sophisms of the Pyrrhonists and Academics1 that afflict us, to them let us apply the remedy. If it is the delusiveness of things, whereby that appeareth to be good which is not so, to that let us seek for the remedy. If a habit afflicts us, against that must we endeavor to find some remedy. And what remedy is to be found against a habit? The contrary habit. Thou hearest the ignorant when they say, The wretched man is dead; his father is perishing with grief for him, or his mother; he was cut off, yea, and untimely, and in a strange land. Hearken, then, to the contrary words. Tear thyself away from such utterances. Against habit set the contrary habit. Against the words of the Sophists have the maxims of104 philosophers and the exercise and constant usage of them; against the delusiveness of things have clear natural conceptions ever burnished and ready.

2. But whatever it is that troubles us, that's where we need to apply the solution. If it's the misleading arguments of the Pyrrhonists and Academics1, then we should address those. If it's the deceptive nature of things, where what seems good isn't actually so, that's what we should seek to remedy. If we are troubled by a habit, we need to find a solution for that. And what remedy can we find for a habit? The opposite habit. You hear ignorant people saying, The poor man is dead; his father is grieving for him, or his mother; he was taken away too soon, and in a foreign land. Listen instead to the opposite words. Distance yourself from such statements. To counter a habit, adopt the opposite habit. Against the words of the Sophists, uphold the maxims of104 philosophers and practice them consistently; against the deception of things, have clear natural understandings always polished and ready.

3. Whenever death may appear to be an evil, have ready the thought that it is right to avoid evils, and that death is unavoidable. For what shall I do? whither shall I flee from it? Let it be granted that I am no Sarpedon, son of Zeus, to speak in that lofty style: I go either to do great deeds myself, or to give another the chance of doing them; though I myself fail I shall not grudge it to another to do nobly.2 Let it be granted that this is above us; still can we not at least rise to the height of that? And whither shall I flee from death? declare to me the place; declare to me the men among whom I shall go, to whom death comes never near; declare to me the charms against it. If I have none, what would ye have me do? I cannot escape death—shall I not then escape the fear of death? shall I die lamenting and trembling? In this is the source of suffering, to wish for something, and that it should not come to pass; and thence it is that when I am able to alter outward things at my desire, I do so, but when not, I am ready to tear out the eyes of him that hindereth me. For man is so made by nature that he will not bear to be deprived of the Good nor to fall into the Evil. And in the end, when I am neither able to alter outward things nor105 to tear out the eyes of him that hindereth me, I sit down and groan and rail on whomsoever I can, Zeus and the other Gods;—for if they neglect me, what have I to do with them? Yea, but thou wilt be an impious man. And how shall I be worse off than I am now? Here is the whole matter: Remember that unless religion and profit meet in the same thing, religion cannot be saved in any man. Do not these things mightily convince of their truth?

3. Whenever death seems to be a bad thing, remind yourself that it's right to avoid bad things, and that death is unavoidable. What should I do? Where can I escape from it? Even if I’m not like Sarpedon, son of Zeus, to put it in such a grand way: I either go on to achieve great things myself or give someone else the opportunity to do so; even if I fail, I'll have no resentment if another acts nobly.2 Fine, maybe that's too lofty for us, but can't we at least aim for that? And where can I run from death? Show me the place; show me the people among whom death never approaches; tell me the tricks to avoid it. If I don’t have any, what do you expect me to do? I can't escape death—shouldn’t I at least escape the fear of death? Am I going to die while lamenting and trembling? That’s where the suffering comes from: wanting something and then not getting it; so when I can change the external things as I wish, I do, but when I can’t, I’m ready to lash out at anyone who stands in my way. People are naturally built to not tolerate losing the Good or falling into the Evil. And in the end, when I can’t change what’s happening around me or strike out at those who hinder me, I just sit down and moan and complain about whoever I can, like Zeus and the other Gods;—because if they ignore me, what do I have to do with them? Yes, but that will make you ungodly. And how could I be worse off than I am now? Here’s the whole point: Remember that unless religion and profit come together in the same thing, no one can truly maintain their faith. Don’t these facts strongly affirm their truth?

4. Let the Pyrrhonist and the Academic come and make their attack—I, for my part, have no leisure for such discussions, nor am I able to argue in defense of general consent.3 For if I had a suit about a little piece of land, would I not call in another to argue for me? Wherewith shall I be satisfied? With that which concerns the matter in hand. How perception takes place, whether by the whole man or by parts, perhaps I know not how to declare: both opinions perplex me. But that thou and I are not the same I know very clearly. Whence know you this? Never, when I wish to eat, do I carry the morsel to another man’s mouth, but to my own. Never, when I wish to take a piece of bread, do I lay hold of a broom, but I always go to the bread, as to a mark. And ye who deny the truth of perception, what do ye other than I? Which of you, desiring to go to the bath, ever went into a mill? What then? Ought we not,106 according to our abilities, to busy ourselves with the upholding of general consent, and raising defenses against all that opposeth the same? And who denies it? But let him do it that can, that hath leisure; but he that trembleth, and is troubled, and his heart is broken within him, let him spend his time on something different.

4. Let the Pyrrhonist and the Academic come and challenge me—I, for my part, don’t have time for such debates, nor can I defend general agreement.3 If I had a dispute about a small piece of land, wouldn’t I bring someone else in to argue on my behalf? What would satisfy me? Only what relates to the matter at hand. How perception occurs, whether through the whole person or in parts, I might not know how to explain: both viewpoints confuse me. But I know very well that you and I are not the same. How do you know this? Never, when I want to eat, do I put the food in someone else’s mouth, but into my own. Never, when I want a piece of bread, do I grab a broom; I always go for the bread, as if it were a target. And you who deny the truth of perception, what do you do differently than I? Which of you, wanting to go to the bath, ever walked into a mill? So what? Should we not,106 in accordance with our abilities, work on supporting general agreement and defending against everything that opposes it? And who disputes that? But let those who can, and who have the time, do it; but those who are trembling, distressed, and heartbroken inside should focus on something else.


CHAPTER VIII.

how we should think as children of God.

1. If those things are true which are said by philosophers concerning the kinship of God and men, what else remains for men to do than after Socrates’ way, who never, when men inquired of him what was his native country, replied Athens or Corinth, but the universe. For why wilt thou say thou art an Athenian, and not rather name thyself from that nook alone into which thy wretched body was cast at birth? Is it not plainly from the lordlier place, and that which contains not only that nook and all thy household, but also the whole land whence the race of thy ancestors has come down even to thee, that thou callest thyself Athenian or Corinthian? Whoso, therefore, hath watched the governance of the universe, and hath learned that the greatest and mightiest and amplest of all societies is that107 which is composed of mankind and of God; and that from Him have descended the seeds not only to my father alone, nor to my grandfather, but to all creatures that are conceived and born upon the earth (but especially to reasoning beings, since to these alone hath nature given it to have communion and intercourse with God, being linked with Him through Reason),—wherefore should such a one not name himself a citizen of the universe? wherefore not a son of God? wherefore shall he fear anything that may come to pass among men? And shall kinship with Cæsar, or with some other of those that are mighty at Rome, be enough to let us live in safety and undespised and fearing nothing at all; but to have God for our maker and father and guardian, shall this not avail to deliver us from griefs and fears?

1. If what philosophers say about the connection between God and humanity is true, what else can we do but follow Socrates’ example? When people asked him where he was from, he never answered with Athens or Corinth, but instead said the universe. Why would you call yourself an Athenian instead of identifying yourself with the larger reality from which you’ve come? Isn’t it clear that you draw your identity not just from the small place where you were born, but from the more significant context that includes that place, your entire homeland, and the legacy of your ancestors? Anyone who has observed how the universe is governed knows that the greatest and most extensive society is the one made up of humanity and God; and that from Him come the origins not just of my father or grandfather, but of all living beings on earth (especially rational beings, since they alone have been given the ability to connect and communicate with God through Reason). So why shouldn’t such a person consider themselves a citizen of the universe? Why not a child of God? Why fear anything that might happen among people? Should a connection with Caesar, or any other powerful figure in Rome, be enough to grant us peace and protection while we fear nothing at all? But having God as our creator, father, and protector—shouldn’t that be enough to free us from pain and fear?

But I have no money, saith one; whence shall I have bread to eat?

But I don't have any money, says one; where will I get bread to eat?

2. Art thou not ashamed to be more cowardly and spiritless than fugitive slaves are? How do they leave their masters when they run away? in what estates do they put their trust? in what servants? After stealing a little to serve them for the first few days, do they not afterwards journey by land and sea, and make their living by one device after another? And when did ever any fugitive slave die of hunger? But thou tremblest and sleepest108 not of nights, for fear lest the necessaries of life fail thee. Wretched man! art thou thus blind? and seest not the road whither the want of necessaries leads a man? And whither leads it? To the same place that a fever doth, or a falling rock—to death. Hast thou not often said this to thy friends? and often read aloud these things, and written them? and how often hast thou vaunted thyself that thou wert at peace about death? Yea, but my dear ones shall also suffer hunger. What then? Doth their hunger lead to any other place than thine? Do they not descend where thou descendest? Is there not one underworld for them and thee? Wilt thou not, then, be bold in all poverty and need, looking to that place whither the wealthiest of men, and the mightiest governors, yea, and even kings and tyrants, must go down; thou, it may be, an-hungered, and they bursting with indigestion and drunkenness?

2. Aren't you ashamed to be more cowardly and spiritless than runaway slaves? How do they leave their masters when they escape? What do they trust in? What help do they find? After taking a little to get by for the first few days, don't they travel by land and sea, figuring things out along the way? And when has a runaway slave ever died of hunger? But you tremble and can't sleep at night, terrified that you'll run out of basic necessities. Poor man! Are you really so blind? Don’t you see the path that a lack of necessities leads to? And where does it lead? To the same place that a fever or a falling rock leads—to death. Haven't you said this to your friends many times? Haven't you often read these things aloud and written about them? How often have you bragged about being at peace with death? Yeah, but my loved ones will also be hungry. So what? Does their hunger lead to a different place than yours? Don’t they end up where you will? Isn’t there one afterlife for both them and you? Then why not be brave in all your poverty and need, knowing you will go to the same place where the wealthiest, the most powerful, even kings and tyrants, must go; you, maybe starving, and they, suffering from indigestion and drunkenness?

How seldom is it that a beggar is seen that is not an old man, and even of exceeding age? but freezing by night and day, and lying on the ground, and eating only what is barely necessary, they come near to being unable to die. Canst thou not transcribe writings? canst thou not teach children? or be some man’s door-keeper?

How rarely do you see a beggar who isn’t an old man, often very elderly? They freeze night and day, lie on the ground, and eat just enough to survive, to the point where they seem unable to die. Can’t you copy written work? Can’t you teach kids? Or be a doorkeeper for someone?

But it is shameful to come to such a necessity!

But it’s embarrassing to end up in such a situation!

Then first of all learn what things are109 shameful, and afterwards tell us thou art a philosopher. But at present suffer not even another man to call thee so.

Then first of all learn what things are109 shameful, and afterwards tell us you are a philosopher. But for now, don’t even let someone else call you that.

3. Is that shameful to thee which is not thine own doing, whereof thou art not the cause, which cometh to thee without thy will, like a headache or a fever? If thy parents were poor, or made others their heirs, or are alive and give thee nothing, are these things shameful to thee? Is this what thou hast learnt from the philosophers? Hast thou never heard that what is shameful is blamable; and that which is blamable ought to be blamed? But what man wilt thou blame for a work not his own, one that he himself never did! And didst thou make thy father such as he is? or was it in thy power to correct him?—is it given thee to do this? What then? Oughtest thou to desire what is not given to thee? or to be ashamed if thou attain it not? Or hast thou been accustomed, in philosophy, to look to others, and to hope for nothing from thyself? Lament, therefore, and groan, and eat thy bread in fear, lest thou have nothing to eat on the morrow. Tremble for thy slaves, lest they steal, or run away, or die. Do thou live thus, now and ever, who hast approached to the name only of philosophy, and hast brought the precepts of it to shame, so far as in thee lies, showing them to be worthless and useless to those who adopt them; thou, who hast never striven to gain110 steadfastness, tranquillity, peace; that never waited upon any man for the sake of these things, but upon many for the sake of learning syllogisms; that never tested for thine own self any one of these appearances:—Am I able to bear it, or am I not able? What, then, remains for me to do? But, as though all went fairly and safely with thee, thou abidest in the final part of philosophy,1 that which confirms beyond all change—and wherein wilt thou be confirmed? in cowardice, meanness, admiration of wealth, in vain pursuit, and vain efforts to avoid? These are the things thou dost meditate how to preserve unharmed.

3. Is it shameful to you if it’s not something you caused, something that comes to you against your will, like a headache or a fever? If your parents were poor, or left their wealth to someone else, or are still alive but give you nothing, does that embarrass you? Is that what you learned from philosophers? Haven’t you ever heard that what's shameful is what can be blamed, and that what can be blamed should be criticized? But who will you blame for something that isn’t his doing, something he didn’t do? Did you shape your father into who he is? Or could you have changed him? Is it even possible for you to do that? So, what then? Should you want what is out of your reach? Or should you feel ashamed if you don’t get it? Or have you been taught in philosophy to rely on others and expect nothing from yourself? So mourn and sigh, and eat your bread in fear that you might run out tomorrow. Fear for your slaves, lest they steal, run away, or die. Do you want to live this way forever, just for having taken on the name of philosophy, while you’ve made its principles look shameful, as far as you can? You, who have never tried to find steadiness, calm, or peace; who never relied on anyone for these things, but on many to learn logic; who never tested for yourself any of these ideas:—Can I handle it, or can I not? What should I do then? But instead of appearing to face life well and securely, you remain stuck in the final part of philosophy,1 that which promises certainty without any change—and where do you find your certainty? In fear, unworthiness, craving for wealth, in pointless pursuits, and futile efforts to escape? These are what you think about how to keep safe and untouched.

4. Shouldst thou not first have gained something from Reason, and then fortified this with safety? Whom sawest thou ever building a coping round about, and never a wall on which to place it? And what door-keeper is set on guard where there is no door? But thy study is how to prove propositions—and what proposition? How the billows of false reasonings may sweep thee not away—and away from what? Show me first what thing thou art guarding, or measuring, or weighing; and afterwards the scales or the measuring-rod. Or how long wilt thou still be measuring the dust? Are not these the things it behooves thee to prove:—what it is that makes men happy, what makes things proceed as we would have them, how one should blame no man111 accuse no man, and fit one’s self to the ordering of the All? Yea, prove me these! But I do so, he saith. See! I resolve you syllogisms. Slave! this is the measuring-rod—it is not the thing measured. Wherefore now you pay the penalty for philosophy neglected; you tremble, you lie awake at nights, you seek counsel on every hand, and if the counsels are not pleasing to all men you think they were ill-counseled.

4. Shouldn't you first have learned something from reason and then backed it up with safety? Who have you ever seen building a coping without a wall to put it on? And what doorkeeper stands guard where there’s no door? But you're focused on proving propositions—and what proposition is that? How can the waves of false reasoning not sweep you away—and away from what? First, show me what you’re guarding, measuring, or weighing; then show me the scales or the measuring stick. Or how long will you keep measuring the dust? Aren't these the things you should be proving: what makes people happy, what makes things go the way we want, how to avoid blaming or accusing anyone, and how to align yourself with the order of everything? Yes, prove those to me! But I do that, he says. Look! I resolve syllogisms. Fool! this is the measuring stick—it’s not the thing being measured. Now you’re paying the price for neglecting philosophy; you’re anxious, you can’t sleep at night, you’re seeking advice everywhere, and if the advice doesn't please everyone, you think it’s bad advice.

5. Then you fear hunger, as you suppose. But it is not hunger that you fear—you fear you will have no cook, nor nobody else to buy victuals for you, nor another to take off your boots, nor another to put them on, nor others to rub you down, nor others to follow you about, so that when you have stripped yourself in the bath, and stretched yourself out as if you were crucified, you may be rubbed to and fro, and then the rubber standing by may say, Turn him round, give me his side, take hold of his head, let me have his shoulder; and then when you leave the bath and go home you may shout, Is no one bringing anything to eat? and then, Take away the plates, and wipe them. This is what you fear,—lest you be not able to live like a sick man. But learn how those live that are in health—slaves, and laborers, and true philosophers; how Socrates lived, who moreover had a wife and children; how Diogenes lived; how Cleanthes that studied in the schools and drew his own water.2 112 If you would have these things, they are everywhere to be had, and you will live boldly. Bold in what? In that wherein alone it is possible to be bold—in that which is faithful, which cannot be hindered, which cannot be taken away. But why hast thou made thyself so worthless and useless that no one is willing to receive thee into his house or take care of thee? But if any utensil were thrown away, and it was sound and serviceable, every one that found it would pick it up and think it a gain; but thee no man would pick up, nor count anything but damage. So thou canst not so much as serve the purpose of a watch-dog, or a cock? Why, then, wilt thou still live, being such a man as thou art?

5. Then you fear hunger, as you think. But it’s not hunger you’re afraid of—it's that you won’t have a cook, or anyone to buy food for you, or someone to take off your boots, or another to put them on, or people to rub you down, or ones to follow you around. So that when you’ve stripped in the bath and stretched out as if you were crucified, you can be rubbed back and forth, and then the person rubbing you might say, Turn him over, give me his side, hold his head, let me have his shoulder; and then when you leave the bath and go home, you can shout, Is no one bringing anything to eat? and then, Clear the plates and wipe them. This is what you fear—being unable to live like a sick person. But learn how healthy people live—slaves, laborers, and true philosophers; how Socrates lived, who also had a wife and kids; how Diogenes lived; how Cleanthes who studied in the schools and drew his own water.2 112 If you want these things, they are available everywhere, and you will live with courage. Courage in what? In what alone allows for true courage—in what is reliable, what can't be hindered, what can't be taken away. But why have you made yourself so worthless and useless that no one wants to take you into their home or care for you? If any useful item were thrown away and was still sound and good, anyone who found it would pick it up and see it as a gain; but nobody would pick you up, nor would they see you as anything but a burden. So you can’t even serve as a watch-dog or a rooster? Why, then, do you still want to live, being the person you are?

6. Doth any good man fear lest the means of gaining food fail him? They fail not the blind, nor the lame; shall they fail a good man? To the good soldier there fails not one who gives him pay, nor to the laborer, nor to the shoemaker; and shall such a one fail to the good man? Is God, then, careless of His instruments, His servants, His witnesses, whom alone He useth to show forth to the untaught what He is, and that He governs all things well, and is not careless of human things? and that to a good man there is no evil, neither in life nor in death? How, then, when He leaves them without food? How else is this than as when a good general gives me the signal for retreat?113 I obey, I follow, praising my leader and hymning his works. For I came when it pleased him, and when it pleases him I will go. In my lifetime also my work was to sing the praise of God, both alone to myself, and to single persons, and in presence of many. He doth not provide me with many things, nor with great abundance of goods; He will not have me live delicately. For neither did He provide so for Hercules, His own son, but another man reigned over Argos and Mycenæ, while he obeyed and labored and was disciplined. And Eurystheus was what he was—no king of Argos and Mycenæ, who was not king even of himself; and Hercules was lord and leader of all the earth and sea, for he purged them of lawlessness and wrong, and brought in righteousness and holiness; naked and alone did he this. And when Odysseus was shipwrecked and cast away, did his need humble him one whit or break his spirit? But how did he go out to the maidens, to beg for the necessaries of life, which it is held most shameful to seek from another?

6. Does any good man worry that he might run out of food? The blind and the lame don’t suffer that fate; why would a good man? The good soldier always has someone to pay him, just like the laborer and the shoemaker; would a good man lack support? Is God indifferent to His instruments, His servants, His witnesses? These are the ones He uses to show the uneducated who He is, that He governs everything well, and that He cares for human affairs. And for a good man, there’s no evil in life or death. How can this be when He leaves them without food? Isn’t this like when a good general gives me the signal to retreat? 113 I obey and follow, praising my leader and celebrating his deeds. I came when it suited him, and I will go when it suits him. Even in my life, my job was to praise God, both to myself, to individuals, and in front of many. He doesn’t provide me with many things or a lot of wealth; He doesn’t want me to live luxuriously. For He didn’t provide that for Hercules, His own son, either, while another man ruled over Argos and Mycenae as he obeyed, worked, and was disciplined. And Eurystheus, what was he really—a king of Argos and Mycenae who couldn’t even rule himself? Hercules was master and leader of all land and sea, for he rid them of lawlessness and wrongdoing, and brought in righteousness and holiness; he did it all alone and bare. And when Odysseus was shipwrecked and stranded, did his need humble him or break his spirit? But how did he approach the maidens to ask for the essentials—a thing seen as shameful to seek from others?

“Even like a lion from his mountain home, So Odysseus set off, trusting in his bravery. Odyssey, vi. 130.

Trusting in what? Not in fame, nor wealth, but in his own valor—that is, his opinions of the things that are and are not in our power.3 For these alone it is that make men114 free and unhindered; that lift up the heads of the abject, and bid them look rich men and tyrants steadily in the face. And this was the gift of the philosopher; but thou wilt never go forth boldly, but trembling for thy fine raiment and silver dishes. Miserable man! hast thou indeed thus wasted all thy time till now?

Trusting in what? Not in fame or wealth, but in his own courage—that is, in his beliefs about what we can and cannot control.3 For these are the things that make people114 free and unrestrained; that raise the spirits of the powerless, allowing them to face rich men and tyrants without fear. This was the wisdom of the philosopher; but you will never act boldly, only worried about your fancy clothes and silver dishes. What a miserable person you are! Have you really wasted all this time until now?


CHAPTER IX.

the unlocked door.

1. For my part I think the old man should be sitting here, not to devise how ye may have no mean thoughts, nor speak no mean nor ignoble things about yourselves, but to watch that there arise not among us youths of such a mind, that when they have perceived their kinship with the Gods, and how the flesh and its possessions are laid upon us like bonds, and how many necessities for the management of life are by them brought upon us, they may desire to fling these things away for abhorred and intolerable burthens, and depart unto their kin. And this is what your master and teacher—if, in sooth, ye had any such—should have to contend with in you,—that ye should come to him and say, Epictetus, we can endure no longer being bound to this body, giving it food and drink, and resting it and115 cleansing it, and going about to court one man after another for its sake. Are not such things indifferent and nothing to us? And is not Death no evil? Are we not in some way kinsmen of God, and did we not come from Him? Let us depart to whence we came; let us be delivered at last from these bonds wherewith we are bound and burthened! Here are robbers, and thieves, and law courts, and those that are called tyrants, which through the body and its possessions seem as if they had some power over us. Let us show them that they have no power over any man! And to this it should be my part to say, “My friends, wait upon God. When He Himself shall give the signal and release you from this service, then are ye released unto Him. But for the present, bear to dwell in this place, wherein He has set you. Short, indeed, is this time of your sojourn, and easy to bear for those that are so minded. For what tyrant or what thief is there any longer, or what court of law is terrible to one who thus makes nothing of the body and the possessions of it? Remain, then, and depart not without a reason.” Some such part as this should the teacher have to play towards the well-natured among his disciples.

1. For my part, I think the old man should be sitting here, not to figure out how you can avoid thinking lowly of yourselves or talking in a shabby way about yourselves, but to keep an eye out for any of us younger folks who might start thinking that once they realize their connection to the Gods, and see how the physical body and its belongings weigh us down like chains, and how many necessities for living have been imposed on us, they might want to get rid of these things as they see them as burdens too heavy to bear and want to leave for their true kin. This is what your master and teacher—if you truly had one—should be dealing with in you, that you come to him and say, Epictetus, we can no longer tolerate being tied to this body, feeding it, giving it drink, resting it, cleaning it, and going after one person after another for its sake. Aren't these things irrelevant and meaningless to us? And is Death not a bad thing? Aren't we somehow related to God, and didn’t we come from Him? Let us return to where we came from; let's finally be freed from these burdens that weigh us down! Here are robbers, and thieves, and courts of law, and those who are called tyrants, who seem to have some power over us through the body and its possessions. Let’s show them they have no power over anyone! And to this, I should respond, “My friends, wait for God. When He decides to give the signal and free you from this obligation, then you will be free to Him. But for now, endure living in this place where He has placed you. This time of your stay is indeed short and easy to bear for those who think this way. For what tyrant or thief is there anymore, or what court of law can frighten someone who sees the body and its belongings as nothing? Stay, then, and don’t leave without a good reason.” This is the role the teacher should play towards the kind-hearted among his students.

2. How long, then, are such injunctions to be obeyed? So long as it is profitable—that is to say, so long as I can do what becomes and befits me. Then some men are116 choleric and fastidious, and say, “I cannot sup with this man, to have to hear him every day telling how he fought in Mysia.” I told you, brother, how I went up the hill—then again I began to be besieged.... But another saith, “I prefer to have my supper, and listen to him prating as long as he likes.” And do thou compare the gain on both sides—only do naught in heaviness or affliction, or as supposing that thou art in evil case. For to this no man can compel thee. Doth it smoke in the chamber? if it is not very much I will stay, if too much, I will go out; for remember this always, and hold fast to it, that the door is open. Thou shalt not live in Nicopolis. I will not. Nor in Athens. I will not live in Athens. Nor in Rome. Neither in Rome. Live in Gyara.1 I will live in Gyara. But living in Gyara seemeth to me like a great smoke. I will depart, whither no man shall hinder me to dwell—for that dwelling stands ever open to all.

2. How long, then, are these rules supposed to be followed? As long as it's beneficial—that is, as long as I can act in a way that suits me. Some people are116 hot-tempered and picky, saying, “I can't have dinner with this guy who keeps going on about how he fought in Mysia.” I told you, brother, how I went up the hill—then I started getting surrounded again.... But someone else says, “I’d rather have my dinner and listen to him talk as long as he wants.” And you should weigh the pros and cons on both sides—just don't do anything with a heavy heart or in distress, or act like you're in a bad situation. Because no one can force you to do that. Is it smoky in the room? If it’s not too bad, I’ll stay; if it’s too much, I’ll step outside; just remember this and hold on to it: the door is always open. You won't live in Nicopolis. I won’t. Nor in Athens. I won’t live in Athens. Nor in Rome. Not in Rome either. Live in Gyara.1 I will live in Gyara. But living in Gyara feels like being in a thick fog. I will leave, wherever no one can stop me from staying—because that place to live is always open to everyone.

3. Only do it not unreasonably, nor cowardly, nor make every common chance an excuse. For again, it is not God’s will, for He hath need of such an order of things, and of such a race upon the earth. But if He give the signal for retreat, as He did to Socrates, we must obey Him as our commander.

3. Just don’t do it in a way that’s unreasonable or cowardly, and don’t use every little setback as an excuse. Again, this is not what God wants, because He needs this kind of order and this kind of people on Earth. But if He gives the signal to retreat, like He did with Socrates, we have to follow Him as our leader.


CHAPTER X.

know yourself.

1. If a man have any advantage over others, or thinks himself to have it when he hath it not, it cannot but be that if he is an untaught man he shall be puffed up by it. Thus the tyrant says, I am he that is master of all. And what can you give me? Can you set my pursuit free of all hindrance? How is it in you to do that? For have you the gift of never falling into what you shun? or never missing the mark of your desire? And whence have you it? Come, now, in a ship do you trust to yourself or to the captain? or in a chariot, to any one else than the driver?1 And how will you do with regard to other acts? Even thus. Where, then, is your power? All men minister to me. And do I not minister to my plate, and I wash it and wipe it, and drive in a peg for my oil-flask? What then, are these things greater than I? Nay, but they supply certain of my needs, and for this reason I take care of them. Yea, and do I not minister to my ass? Do I not wash his feet and groom him? Know you not that every man ministers to himself? And he ministers to you also, even as he doth to the ass. For who118 treats you as a man? Show me one that doth. Who wisheth to be like unto you? who becomes your imitator, as men did of Socrates? But I can cut off thy head. You say well. I had forgotten that I must pay regard to you as to a fever or the cholera; and set up an altar to you, as there is in Rome an altar to Fever.

1. If a man has any advantage over others, or thinks he does when he really doesn’t, it’s inevitable that if he's uneducated, he will become arrogant about it. So the tyrant says, I am the master of all. And what can you offer me? Can you free me from all obstacles in my pursuits? How can you even do that? Do you have the ability to never end up in situations you want to avoid? Or to always hit the target of your desires? And where did you get that ability? Come on, in a ship, do you rely on yourself or the captain? Or in a chariot, do you trust anyone other than the driver? 1 And how will you manage other actions? It’s the same. So, where is your power? All men serve me. But don’t I serve my plate when I wash and dry it, and put a peg in my oil flask? Are these things greater than me? No, but they fulfill certain needs of mine, and that's why I take care of them. And don’t I also take care of my donkey? Don’t I wash its feet and groom it? Don’t you realize that every man serves himself? And he serves you too, just like he does for the donkey. Who treats you like a person? Show me someone who does. Who wants to be like you? Who imitates you like people did with Socrates? But I can cut off your head. You're right. I had forgotten that I need to treat you like a sickness or cholera; and set up an altar to you, just like there's an altar to Fever in Rome.

2. What is it, then, whereby the multitude is troubled and terrified? The tyrant and his guards? Never—God forbid it! It is not possible that that which is by nature free should be troubled by any other thing, or hindered, save by itself. But it is troubled by opinions of things. For when the tyrant saith to any one, I will bind thy leg, then he who setteth store by his leg saith, Nay, have pity! but he that setteth store by his own Will, If it seem more profitable to you, then bind it.

2. So, what is it that troubles and scares the crowd? The tyrant and his guards? Absolutely not—thank goodness! It's not possible for something that is naturally free to be troubled or held back by anything else, except by itself. Instead, it's troubled by its own opinions. Because when the tyrant says to someone, I will bind your leg, the person who values his leg responds, No, please have mercy! but the person who values his own Will says, If it seems more beneficial to you, then go ahead and bind it.

——“Dost thou not regard me?”

“Do you not see me?”

I do not regard you. I will show you that I am master. How can you be that? Me hath God set free; or think you that He would let His own Son be enslaved? You are lord of my dead body—take that.

I don't see you as my equal. I'll prove that I'm in charge. How can you claim that? God has set me free; do you really think He would allow His own Son to be trapped? You may rule over my lifeless body—take that.

——“So when thou comest near to me, thou wilt not do me service?”

——“So when you come near to me, you won't help me?”

Nay, but I will do it to myself; and if you will have me say that I do it to you also, I tell you that I do it as to my kitchen pot.

Nay, but I will do it to myself; and if you want me to say that I do it to you as well, I tell you that I do it like my kitchen pot.

3. This is no selfishness; for every living creature is so made that it doth all things119 for its own sake. For the sun doth all things for his own sake, and so, moreover, even Zeus himself. But when He will be Raingiver and Fruitgiver and Father of Gods and men, thou seest that He may not do these works and have these titles, but He be serviceable to the common good. And, on the whole, He hath so formed the nature of the reasoning creature that he may never win aught of his own good without he furnish something of service to the common good. Thus it is not to the excluding of the common good that a man do all things for himself. For is it to be expected that a man shall stand aloof from himself and his own interest? And where then would be that same and single principle which we observe in all things, their affection to themselves?

3. This isn't selfishness; every living creature is designed to act in its own interest. The sun does everything for its own sake, and even Zeus does the same. However, when He chooses to be the Rain Giver, the Fruit Giver, and the Father of Gods and men, you can see that He can't perform these roles or hold these titles without contributing to the common good. Overall, He has shaped the nature of rational beings so that they cannot achieve their own benefit without providing something beneficial to the community. Therefore, when a person acts in their own interest, it doesn't exclude the common good. Can we really expect someone to distance themselves from their own interests? And where would that consistent principle we see in everything—their self-interest—be?

4. So, then, when we act on strange and foolish opinions of things beyond the Will, as though they were good or evil, it is altogether impossible but we shall do service to tyrants. And would it were to the tyrants alone, and not to their lackeys also!

4. So, when we act on odd and foolish beliefs about things outside of our control, as if they were good or bad, it's impossible not to end up serving tyrants. And I wish it were only the tyrants we were serving and not their minions, too!

5. But what hinders the man that hath distinguished these things to live easily and docile, looking calmly on all that is to be, and bearing calmly all that is past? Will you have me bear poverty? Come, and see what poverty is when it strikes one that knoweth how to play the part well. Will you have me rule? Give me power, then, and the pains of it. Banishment? Whith120ersoever I go, it shall be well with me for in this place it was well with me, not because of the place, but because of the opinions which I shall carry away with me. For these no man can deprive me of. Yea, these only are mine own, whereof I cannot be deprived, and they suffice for me as long as I have them, wherever I be, or whatever I do.

5. But what stops a person who understands these things from living easily and being adaptable, calmly accepting everything that comes, and peacefully accepting everything that has happened? Do you want me to accept poverty? Come, and see what poverty looks like when it hits someone who knows how to handle it well. Do you want me to lead? Then give me the power, along with its challenges. Exile? Wherever I go, I’ll be fine because it was good for me here, not because of the location, but because of the mindset I’ll take with me. No one can take that away from me. Yes, these thoughts are mine alone, and I cannot lose them; they are enough for me as long as I have them, no matter where I am or what I do.

6. ——“But now is the time come to die.”

6. ——“But now it’s time to die.”

What say you? to die? Nay, make no tragedy of the business, but tell it as it is. Now is it time for my substance to be resolved again into the things wherefrom it came together. And what is dreadful in this? What of the things in the universe is about to perish? What new, or what unaccountable thing is about to come to pass? Is it for these things that a tyrant is feared? through these that the guards seem to bear swords so large and sharp? Tell that to others; but by me all these things have been examined; no man hath power on me. I have been set free by God, I know His commandments, henceforth no man can lead me captive. I have a liberator2 such as I need, and judges such as I need. Are you not the master of my body? What is that to me? Of my property? What is that to me? Of exile or captivity? Again, I say, from all these things, and the poor body itself, I will depart when you will. Try your121 power, and you shall know how far it reaches.

What do you say? To die? No, don't make it a big deal; just speak the truth. It's time for my essence to return to where it came from. What's so terrifying about that? What in the universe is about to disappear? What new or strange thing is about to happen? Is that why a tyrant is feared? Is that why guards carry such large and sharp swords? Tell that to someone else; I've thought about all these things, and no one has power over me. I've been set free by God; I know His commandments, so no one can take me captive anymore. I have a liberator2 that I need, and judges that I need. Are you the master of my body? What does that matter to me? Of my property? What does that matter to me? Of exile or captivity? Again, I say, I will leave all these things, including this poor body, whenever you want. Test your121 power, and you’ll see how far it goes.

7. But the tyrant will bind—what? The leg. He will take away—what? The head. What, then, can he not bind and not take away? The Will. And hence that precept of the ancients—Know Thyself.

7. But the tyrant will bind—what? The leg. He will take away—what? The head. What, then, can he not bind and not take away? The Will. And that's why the ancient saying—Know Yourself.

8. Whom, then, can I still fear? The lackeys of the bed-chamber? For what that they can do? Shut me out? Let them shut me out, if they find me wishing to go in.

8. So, who can I still be afraid of? The servants in the bedroom? What can they really do? Keep me out? Let them keep me out if they find me wanting to go in.

——“Why, then, didst thou go to the doors?”

——“Why, then, did you go to the doors?”

Because I hold it proper to join the play while the play lasts.

Because I think it's right to participate in the play while it’s happening.

——“How, then, shalt thou not be shut out?”

——“So, how can you avoid being shut out?”

Because if I am not received, I do not wish to enter; but always that which happens is what I wish. For I hold what God wills above what I will. I cleave to Him as His servant and follower; my impulses are one with His, my pursuit is one with His; in a word, my will is one with His. There is no shutting out for me—nay, but for those who would force their way in. And wherefore do I not force my way? Because I know that no good thing is dealt out within to those that enter. But when I hear some one congratulated on being honored by Cæsar, I say, What hath fortune brought him? A government? Has it122 also, then, brought him such an opinion as he ought to have? A magistracy? Hath he also gained the power to be a good magistrate? Why will I still push myself forward? A man scatters figs and almonds abroad; children seize them, and fight among themselves; but not so men, for they hold it too trifling a matter. And if a man should scatter about oyster-shells, not even the children would seize them. Offices of government are dealt out—children will look for them; money is given—children will look for it; military commands, consulships—let children scramble for them. Let them be shut out and smitten, let them kiss the hands of the giver, of his slaves—it is figs and almonds to me. What then? If thou miss them when he is flinging them about, let it not vex thee. If a fig fall into thy bosom, take and eat it, for so far even a fig is to be valued. But if I must stoop down for it, and throw down another man, or another throw me down, and I flatter those who enter in, then neither is a fig worth so much, nor is any other of the things that are not good, even those which the philosophers have persuaded me not to think good.

Because if I'm not welcomed, I don't want to come in; but whatever happens is what I want. I value what God wants more than what I want. I stick close to Him as His servant and follower; my desires align with His, my goals are the same as His; in short, my will is the same as His. There's no exclusion for me—only for those who try to force their way in. And why don't I push my way in? Because I know that no good comes to those who enter that way. But when I hear someone congratulated for being honored by Caesar, I wonder, what good fortune has he received? A government position? Did it also give him the perspective he should have? A magistracy? Did he also gain the ability to be a good magistrate? Why should I push myself forward? A person throws figs and almonds around; children grab them and fight over them; but men don't bother because they see it as too trivial. And if someone were to scatter oyster shells, not even the children would want them. Government positions are given out—children will chase after them; money is handed out—children will seek it; military commands, consulships—let children scramble for those. Let them be kept out and beaten, let them kiss the hands of the giver and his servants—those are just figs and almonds to me. What if you miss them when he’s tossing them around? Don’t let it upset you. If a fig falls into your lap, take it and eat it, for even a fig has some value. But if I have to bend down for it, and push someone else aside, or if someone pushes me down, and I flatter those who enter, then neither the fig nor any other trivial thing holds any real worth, not even those things the philosophers have convinced me are valuable.


CHAPTER XI.1

how we should conduct ourselves toward evil men.

1. If that which the philosophers say is true—that there is one principle in all men, as when I assent to something, the feeling that it is so; and when I dissent, the feeling that it is not so; yea, and when I withhold my judgment, the feeling that it is uncertain; and likewise, when I am moved towards anything, the feeling that it is for my profit, but it is impossible to judge one thing to be profitable and to pursue another, to judge one thing right and be moved towards another—why have we indignation with the multitude? They are robbers, one saith, and thieves. And what is it to be robbers and thieves? It is to err concerning things good and evil. Shall we, then, have indignation with them, or shall we pity them? Nay, but show them the error, and you shall see how they will cease from their sins. But if they see it not, they have naught better than the appearance of the thing to them.

1. If what the philosophers say is true—that there is one principle in all people, like when I agree with something, I feel that it is true; and when I disagree, I feel that it is not true; and when I hold back my judgment, I feel that it is uncertain; and also, when I am drawn toward something, I feel that it is beneficial for me, but it’s impossible to judge one thing as beneficial and pursue another, to judge one thing as right and be drawn toward another—why do we feel anger toward the masses? They are robbers, some say, and thieves. And what does it mean to be robbers and thieves? It means to be wrong about what is good and what is evil. Should we then feel anger toward them, or should we feel pity? No, instead, show them their mistake, and you’ll see how they will stop their wrongdoings. But if they don’t see it, they have nothing better than the appearance of things to them.

2. Should not, then, this robber, or this adulterer, be destroyed? By no means, but take it rather this way: This man who errs and is deceived concerning things of greatest124 moment, who is blinded, not in the vision which distinguisheth black and white, but in the judgment which distinguisheth Good and Evil—should we not destroy him? And thus speaking, you shall know how inhuman is that which you say, and how like as if you said, Shall we not destroy this blind man, this deaf man? For if it is the greatest injury to be deprived of the greatest things, and the greatest thing in every man is a Will such as he ought to have, and one be deprived of this, why are you still indignant with him? Man, you should not be moved contrary to Nature by the evil deeds of other men. Pity him rather, be not inclined to offense and hatred, abandon the phrases of the multitude, like “these cursed wretches.” How have you suddenly become so wise and hard to please?

2. Shouldn't we destroy this robber or this adulterer? Not at all. Instead, consider it this way: This man, who makes mistakes and is misled about the most significant124 matters, who is blinded not in sight—able to see black and white—but in judgment, unable to tell Good from Evil—should we destroy him? By saying this, you will understand how inhumane your words are, as if you were saying, Should we not destroy this blind man, this deaf man? For if it is the worst thing to be deprived of the most important aspects, and the most important thing in every person is a Will that they ought to have, then if someone is deprived of this, why are you still angry with him? You should not react against Nature due to the wrongdoings of others. Instead, feel compassion for him, don't lean towards offense and hatred, and let go of the common phrases like “these cursed wretches.” How did you suddenly become so wise and hard to satisfy?

3. Wherefore, then, have we indignation? Because we worship the things which they deprive us of. Do not worship fine raiment, and you shall not be wroth with the thief. Do not worship the beauty of a woman, and you shall not be wroth with the adulterer. Know that the thief and the adulterer have no part in that which is thine own, but in that which is foreign to thee, in that which is not in thy power. These things if thou dismiss, and count them for naught, with whom shalt thou still be wroth? But so long as thou dost value these things, be wroth with thyself rather than with others.

3. So, why do we feel anger? Because we value the things that they take from us. Don’t value fancy clothes, and you won’t be mad at the thief. Don’t value a woman’s beauty, and you won’t be mad at the adulterer. Understand that the thief and the adulterer have no claim on what truly belongs to you, but on what is outside of you, on what is not in your control. If you let go of these things and consider them worthless, who will you still be angry with? As long as you value these things, be angry with yourself instead of others.

1254. Look now how it stands: You have fine raiment, your neighbor has not; you have a window, and wish to air your clothes at it. The neighbor knoweth not what is the true good of man, but thinks it is to have fine raiment, the same thing that you also think. Then shall he not come and take them away? Show a cake to greedy persons, and eat it up yourself alone, and will you have them not snatch at it? Nay, but provoke them not. Have no window, and do not air your clothes. I also had lately an iron lamp set beside the images of the Gods; hearing a noise at the door, I ran down, and found the lamp carried off. I reflected that the thief’s impulse was not unnatural. What then? To-morrow, I said, thou wilt find an earthen lamp.2 For a man loses only what he has. I have lost a garment. For you had a garment. I have a pain in my head. Have you any pain in your horns? Why, then, have you indignation? For there is no loss and no suffering save only in those things which we possess.

1254. Look at how it is: You have nice clothes, your neighbor doesn’t; you have a window and want to hang your clothes out to dry. Your neighbor doesn’t understand what really matters in life but believes it’s all about having nice clothes, just like you do. So, won’t he come and take them? Show a cake to greedy people, eat it all by yourself, and do you think they won’t try to grab it? No, but don’t encourage them. Don’t have a window, and don’t hang your clothes out to dry. I recently had an iron lamp placed next to the images of the Gods; when I heard a noise at the door, I rushed down and found the lamp gone. I realized that the thief’s urge wasn’t unnatural. So what? Tomorrow, I said, you’ll find an earthen lamp.2 A man only loses what he actually has. I lost a piece of clothing. Well, you had a piece of clothing. I have a headache. Do you have any pain in your horns? Then why do you feel angry? Because there’s no loss and no suffering except in the things we possess.


CHAPTER XII.

the journey of life.

Even as in a sea voyage, when the ship is brought to anchor, and you go out to fetch in water, you make a by-work of gathering126 a few roots and shells by the way, but have need ever to keep your mind fixed on the ship, and constantly to look round, lest at any time the master of the ship call, and you must, if he call, cast away all those things, lest you be treated like the sheep that are bound and thrown into the hold: So it is with human life also. And if there be given wife and children instead of shells and roots, nothing shall hinder us to take them. But if the master call, run to the ship, forsaking all those things, and looking not behind. And if thou be in old age, go not far from the ship at any time, lest the master should call, and thou be not ready.

Even when you're on a boat trip and the ship is anchored, when you go out to get water, you might pick up a few roots and shells along the way. But you always need to keep your mind on the ship and glance around often, just in case the captain calls for you. If he does, you have to leave everything behind, or you'll end up like the sheep that are tied up and thrown below deck. The same goes for life. If you have a wife and kids instead of shells and roots, there's nothing stopping you from taking them along. But if the captain calls, hurry back to the ship, leaving everything else behind and not looking back. And if you're old, don't stray too far from the ship at any time, so that when the captain calls, you're ready.


CHAPTER XIII.

the sign of effort.

1. Seek not to have things happen as you choose them, but rather choose them to happen as they do, and so shall you live prosperously.

1. Don't try to make things happen the way you want, but instead choose to accept them as they are, and you will live a successful life.

2. Disease is a hindrance of the body, not of the Will, unless the Will itself consent. Lameness is a hindrance of the leg, not of the Will. And this you may say on every occasion, for nothing can happen to you but you will find it a hindrance not of yourself but of some other thing.

2. Disease is an obstacle for the body, not for the Will, unless the Will itself agrees. Lameness is a limitation of the leg, not of the Will. And you can say this in every situation, because nothing that happens to you is truly a hindrance of yourself, but rather of something else.

3. What, then, are the things that oppress127 us and perturb us? What else than opinions? He that goeth away and leaveth his familiars and companions and wonted places and habits—with what else is he oppressed than his opinions? Now, little children, if they cry because their nurse has left them for a while, straightway forget their sorrow when they are given a small cake. Wilt thou be likened unto a little child?

3. So, what are the things that weigh us down and disturb us? Isn’t it just our opinions? When someone leaves their family, friends, familiar places, and routines, what else are they troubled by except their own thoughts? Now, little kids, if they cry because their caregiver has stepped away for a bit, they quickly forget their sadness when they receive a small treat. Do you want to be compared to a little child?

——“Nay, by Zeus! for I would not be thus affected by a little cake, but by right opinions.”

——“No way, by Zeus! I wouldn’t be influenced by a small cake, but by strong beliefs.”

And what are these?

What are these?

They are such as a man should study all day long to observe—that he be not subject to the effects of anything that is alien to him, neither of friend, nor place, nor exercises; yea, not even of his own body, but to remember the Law, and have it ever before his eyes. And what is the divine Law? To hold fast that which is his own, and to claim nothing that is another’s; to use what is given him, and not to covet what is not given; to yield up easily and willingly what is taken away, giving thanks for the time that he has had it at his service. This do—or cry for the nurse and mamma; for what doth it matter to what or whom thou art subject, from what thy welfare hangs? Wherein art thou better than one who bewails himself for his mistress, if thou lament thy exercises and porticoes and comrades, and all such pastime? Another cometh,128 grieving because he shall no more drink of the water of Dirce. And is the Marcian water worse than that of Dirce?

They are like a person who should study all day to observe—that they are not affected by anything outside themselves, whether it's friends, places, or activities; not even by their own body, but to remember the Law and keep it always in mind. And what is the divine Law? It's to hold on to what is yours and not claim anything that belongs to someone else; to use what you are given and not to envy what is not yours; to let go easily and willingly of what is taken away, being thankful for the time you had it at your service. Do this—or call for help; for what does it matter to whom or what you are subject, or what your well-being depends on? How are you better than someone who mourns for their lover if you lament your activities, your colonnades, your friends, and all such amusements? Another person comes, grieving because they can no longer drink from the water of Dirce. And is the Marcian water worse than that of Dirce?

——“But I was used to the other.”

——“But I was used to the other.”

And to this also thou shalt be used; and when thou art so affected towards it, lament for it too, and try to make a verse like that of Euripides—

And you should also get used to this; and when you feel this way about it, mourn for it as well, and try to write a verse like that of Euripides—

“The baths of Nero and the Marcian stream”1

“The baths of Nero and the Marcian stream”1

Behold how tragedies are made, when common chances happen to foolish men!

Look at how tragedies are created when ordinary events occur to foolish people!

4.——“But when shall I see Athens and the Acropolis again?”

4.——“But when will I see Athens and the Acropolis again?”

Wretched man! doth not that satisfy thee which thou seest every day? Hast thou aught better or greater to see than the sun, the moon, the stars, the common earth, the sea? But if withal thou mark the way of Him that governeth the whole and bear Him about within thee, wilt thou still long for cut stones and a fine rock? And when thou shalt come to leave the sun itself and the moon, what wilt thou do? Sit down and cry, like the children? What, then, wert thou doing in the school? What didst thou hear, what didst thou learn? Why didst thou write thyself down a philosopher, when thou mightest have written the truth, as thus:—I made certain beginnings, and read Chrysippus, but did not so much as enter the door of a philosopher? For how shouldst thou have aught in common with Socrates,129 who died as he died, who lived as he lived—or with Diogenes? Dost thou think that any of these men lamented or was indignant because he should see such a man or such a woman no more? or because he should not dwell in Athens or in Corinth, but, as it might chance, in Susa or Ecbatana? When a man can leave the banquet or the game when he pleases, shall such a one grieve if he remains? Shall he not, as in a game, stay only so long as he is entertained? A man of this stamp would easily endure such a thing as perpetual exile or sentence of death.

Wretched man! Doesn’t what you see every day satisfy you? Do you have anything better or greater to see than the sun, the moon, the stars, the earth, or the sea? But if you also consider the way of the one who governs everything and carry Him within you, will you still long for cut stones and beautiful rocks? And when you have to leave the sun and the moon, what will you do? Sit down and cry like children? What were you doing in school? What did you hear, what did you learn? Why did you call yourself a philosopher when you could have stated the truth like this:—I made some beginnings and read Chrysippus, but never even entered the door of a philosopher? How could you have anything in common with Socrates,129 who lived and died as he did—or with Diogenes? Do you think any of these men lamented or got upset because they wouldn’t see such a man or woman anymore? Or because they wouldn’t live in Athens or Corinth but, as it might happen, in Susa or Ecbatana? When a man can leave the feast or the game whenever he wants, should he grieve if he stays? Shouldn’t he, like in a game, remain only as long as he enjoys it? A man like this would easily endure something like permanent exile or a death sentence.

Wilt thou not now be weaned as children are, and take more solid food, nor cry any more after thy mother and nurse, wailing like an old woman?

Will you not now grow up like children do, and eat more solid food, and stop crying after your mother and caregiver, wailing like an old woman?

——“But if I quit them I shall grieve them.”

——“But if I leave them, I’ll hurt them.”

Thou grieve them? Never; but that shall grieve them which grieveth thee—Opinion. What hast thou then to do? Cast away thy own bad opinion; and they, if they do well, will cast away theirs; if not, they are the causes of their own lamenting.

You upset them? Never; but what will upset them is what upsets you—Opinion. So what should you do? Get rid of your own negative opinion; and they, if they’re doing well, will get rid of theirs; if not, they are the reasons for their own sorrow.

5. Man, be mad at last, as the saying is, for peace, for freedom, for magnanimity. Lift up thy head as one delivered from slavery. Dare to look up to God and say: Deal with me henceforth as thou wilt; I am of one mind with thee; I am thine. I reject nothing that seems good to thee; lead me whithersoever thou wilt, clothe me in what130 dress thou wilt. Wilt thou have me govern or live privately, or stay at home, or go into exile, or be a poor man or a rich? For all these conditions I will be thy advocate with men—I show the nature of each of them, what it is.

5. Man, be finally mad, like they say, for peace, for freedom, for generosity. Hold your head high like someone who's been freed from slavery. Have the courage to look up to God and say: From now on, deal with me however you want; I stand with you; I am yours. I reject nothing that seems good to you; lead me wherever you will, clothe me in whatever outfit you choose. Do you want me to lead or live quietly, stay home, go into exile, be poor or rich? For all these situations, I will be your advocate with people—I will explain the nature of each of them, what they are.

Nay, but sit in a corner and wait for thy mother to feed thee.2

No, just sit in a corner and wait for your mom to feed you.2

6. Who would Hercules have been if he had sat at home? He would have been Eurystheus, and not Hercules. And how many companions and friends had he in his journeying about the world? But nothing was dearer to him than God; and for this he was believed to be the son of God, yea, and was the son of God. And trusting in God, he went about purging away lawlessness and wrong. But thou art no Hercules, and canst not purge away evils not thine own? nor yet Theseus, who cleared Attica of evil things? Then clear away thine own. From thy breast, from thy mind cast out, instead of Procrustes and Sciron, grief, fear, covetousness, envy, malice, avarice, effeminacy, profligacy. And these things cannot otherwise be cast out than by looking to God only, being affected only by Him, and consecrated to His commands. But choosing anything else than this, thou wilt follow with groaning and lamentation whatever is stronger than thou, ever seeking prosperity in things outside thyself, and never able to attain it. For thou seekest it where it is not, and neglectest to seek it where it is.

6. Who would Hercules have been if he had stayed home? He would have been Eurystheus, not Hercules. And how many companions and friends did he have while traveling the world? But nothing was more important to him than God; and for this, he was believed to be the son of God, in fact, he was the son of God. Trusting in God, he went around getting rid of lawlessness and injustice. But you are no Hercules, and you cannot eliminate evils that aren’t yours? Nor can you be Theseus, who cleared Attica of wickedness? Then clear away your own. From your heart, from your mind, cast out, instead of Procrustes and Sciron, grief, fear, greed, envy, malice, selfishness, and indulgence. And you cannot get rid of these things in any other way than by focusing solely on God, being influenced only by Him, and dedicated to His commands. But if you choose anything other than this, you will follow with sighs and lamentations whatever is stronger than you, always searching for happiness in things outside yourself, and never able to find it. For you seek it where it isn’t, and neglect to seek it where it is.


CHAPTER XIV.

departments.

Remember at anything that shall befall thee to turn to thyself and seek what faculty thou hast for making use of it. If thou see a beautiful person, thou wilt find a faculty for that—namely, Self-mastery. If toil is laid upon thee, thou wilt find the faculty of Perseverance. If thou art reviled, thou wilt find Patience. And making this thy wont, thou shalt not be carried away by the appearances.

Remember that when anything happens to you, turn inward and find the ability you have to deal with it. If you see someone beautiful, you’ll discover your ability for self-control. If you’re burdened with hard work, you’ll find your capacity for perseverance. If someone insults you, you’ll find patience. By making this a habit, you won't be swayed by appearances.


CHAPTER XV.

returns.

Never in any case say, I have lost such a thing, but I have returned it. Is thy child dead? it is returned. Is thy wife dead? she is returned. Art thou deprived of thy estate? is not this also returned?

Never say, I have lost something; instead say, I have returned it. Is your child dead? They have returned. Is your wife dead? She has returned. Have you lost your estate? Isn't that also returned?

——“But he is wicked who deprives me of it!”

——“But he's cruel for taking it away from me!”

But what is that to thee, through whom the Giver demands his own? As long, therefore, as he grants it to thee, steward it like another’s property, as travelers use an inn.

But what does that matter to you, through whom the Giver asks for what is His? As long as He gives it to you, treat it like someone else's property, just like travelers use an inn.


CHAPTER XVI.

the cost of peace.

1. If you would advance in philosophy you must abandon such thoughts as, If I neglect my affairs I shall not have the means of living. If I do not correct my servant he will be good for nothing. For it is better to die of hunger, having lived without grief and fear, than to live with a troubled spirit amid abundance. And it is better to have a bad servant than an afflicted mind.

1. If you want to make progress in philosophy, you need to let go of thoughts like, If I ignore my responsibilities, I won’t be able to support myself. If I don’t discipline my servant, he’ll be useless. It's better to starve while living without sadness and fear than to live with a troubled mind, even if you have plenty. And having a bad servant is preferable to having a troubled mind.

2. Make a beginning then in small matters. Is a little of your oil spilt, or a little wine stolen? Then say to yourself, For so much peace is bought, this is the price of tranquillity. For nothing can be gained without paying for it. And when you call your servant, bethink you that he may not hear, or, hearing, may not obey. For him, indeed, that is not well, but for you it is altogether well that he have not the power to trouble your mind.

2. Start with the small things. Is a bit of your oil spilled, or a little wine taken? Then remind yourself, This is the cost of peace, and this is the price for tranquility. Because nothing can be gained without some kind of payment. And when you call your servant, remember that he might not hear you, or if he does, he might not obey. It's not good for him, but for you, it's perfectly fine that he can’t disturb your peace of mind.


CHAPTER XVII.

a decision.

If thou wouldst advance, be content to let people think thee senseless and foolish as133 regards external things. Wish not ever to seem wise, and if ever thou shalt find thyself accounted to be somebody, then mistrust thyself. For know that it is not easy to make a choice that shall agree both with outward things and with Nature, but it must needs be that he who is careful of the one shall neglect the other.

If you want to get ahead, be okay with people thinking you’re senseless and foolish about external things. Don’t ever try to seem wise, and if you ever find yourself considered important, then doubt yourself. Because it’s not easy to make a choice that aligns with both external things and Nature, but the truth is, if you focus too much on one, you’ll end up neglecting the other.


CHAPTER XVIII.

Wherever the heart is, that's where the bond exists.

1. Thou art a fool if thou desire wife and children and friends to live forever, for that is desiring things to be in thy power which are not in thy power, and things pertaining to others to be thine own. So also thou art a fool to desire that thy servant should never do anything amiss, for that is desiring evil not to be evil, but something else. But if thou desire never to fail in any pursuit, this thou canst do. This, therefore, practice to attain—namely, the attainable.

1. You are a fool if you want a wife, children, and friends to live forever, because that means wanting things that are beyond your control and expecting things belonging to others to be yours. Similarly, you are foolish to wish that your servant would never make a mistake, as that is wanting evil to not be evil, but something different. However, if you want to never fail in any endeavor, that is within your reach. So, focus on achieving what is attainable.

2. The lord of each of us is he that hath power over the things that we desire or dislike, to give or to take them away. Whosoever, then, will be free, let him neither desire nor shun any of the things that are in others’ power; otherwise he must needs be enslaved.

2. The lord of each of us is the one who has control over the things we want or don't want, to give or take them away. Therefore, anyone who wants to be free should not desire or avoid anything that is in someone else's power; otherwise, they will inevitably be enslaved.

1343. Wherefore Demetrius1 said to Nero, You threaten me with death, but Nature threatens you. If I am taken up with my poor body, or my property, I have given myself over to slavery, for I immediately show of my own self with what I may be captured. As when a snake draws in his head, I say, Strike at that part of him which he guards. And know thou, that at the part thou desirest to guard, there thy master will fall upon thee. Remembering this, whom wilt thou still flatter or fear?

1343. So Demetrius1 said to Nero, You threaten me with death, but Nature threatens you. If I get caught up with my body or my possessions, I’ve given myself over to slavery, because I instantly reveal what can capture me. Just like a snake tucks in its head, I say, Strike at the part of it that it protects. And know this, at the part you want to protect, that’s where your master will attack you. Remember this—who will you still flatter or fear?

4. Think that thou shouldst conduct thyself in life as at a feast. Is some dish brought to thee? Then put forth thyself in seemly fashion. Doth it pass thee by? Then hold it not back. Hath it not yet come? Then do not reach out for it at a distance, but wait till it is at thine hand. And thus doing with regard to children and wife and governments and wealth, thou wilt be a worthy guest at the table of the Gods. And if thou even pass over things that are offered to thee, and refuse to take of them, then thou wilt not only share the banquet, but also the dominion of the Gods. For so doing Diogenes and Heracleitus, and the like, both were, and were reported to be, rightly divine.

4. Think of your life as if you're at a feast. If a dish is presented to you, accept it gracefully. If it passes you by, don’t try to hold it back. If it hasn’t arrived yet, don’t reach out for it; just wait until it’s within your reach. If you approach children, your spouse, governments, and wealth this way, you’ll be a worthy guest at the table of the Gods. And if you choose to skip over things that are offered and refuse to take them, then you won’t just share the feast, but also the power of the Gods. This is how Diogenes and Heraclitus lived, and they were both considered truly divine.


CHAPTER XIX.

that we mourn not from within.

When thou seest one lamenting in grief because his son is gone abroad, or because he hath lost his goods, look to it that thou be not carried away by the appearance to think that he hath truly fallen into misfortune, in outward things. But be the thought at hand, It is not the thing itself that afflicts this man—since there are others whom it afflicts not—but the opinion he has about it. And so far as speech, be not slow to fit thyself to his mood, and even if so it be to lament with him. But have a care that thou lament not also from within.

When you see someone grieving because their son has gone away or because they've lost their possessions, be careful not to be misled by appearances into thinking that they are genuinely unfortunate in their external circumstances. Remember, it's not the situation itself that's causing this person's distress—since there are others who aren't affected by it—but rather the opinion they hold about it. In terms of conversation, don’t hesitate to match their mood, even if it means sharing in their sorrow. But be careful not to feel that sadness within yourself as well.


CHAPTER XX.

that a man can perform his role but cannot choose it.

1. Remember that thou art an actor in a play, of such a part as it may please the director to assign thee; of a short part if he choose a short part; of a long one if he choose a long. And if he will have thee take the part of a poor man, or of a cripple, or a governor, or a private person, mayest136 thou act that part with grace! For thine it is to act well the allotted part, but to choose it is another’s.

1. Keep in mind that you are an actor in a play, playing whatever role the director assigns to you; a short role if he chooses a short one, a long role if he chooses a long one. And if he wants you to play the part of a poor person, or a disabled person, or a leader, or an ordinary individual, may you perform that role with grace! For your job is to play your assigned role well, but choosing it is someone else's responsibility.

2. Say no more then, How will it be with me? for however it be thou wilt settle it well, and the issue shall be fortunate. What would Hercules have been had he said, How shall I contrive that a great lion may not appear to me, or a great boar, or a savage man? And what hast thou to do with that? if a great boar appear, thou wilt fight the greater fight; if evil men, thou wilt clear the earth of them. But if I die thus? Thou wilt die a good man, in the accomplishing of a noble deed. For since we must by all means die, a man cannot be found but he will be doing somewhat, either tilling or digging or trading or governing, or having an indigestion or a diarrhœa. What wilt thou, then, that Death shall find thee doing? I, for my part, will choose some work, humane, beneficent, social, noble. But if I am not able to be found doing things of this greatness, then, at least, I will be doing that which none can hinder me to do, that which is given to me to do—namely, correcting myself, bettering my faculty for making use of appearances, working out my peace, giving what is due in every obligation of life; and if I prosper so far, then entering upon the third topic of philosophy, which concerneth the security of judgments.

2. Say no more then, What will happen to me? Because however it turns out, you’ll handle it well, and the outcome will be good. What would Hercules have been if he had said, How can I avoid facing a great lion, or a huge boar, or a savage man? And what does that matter to you? If a huge boar shows up, you’ll face a bigger challenge; if bad people come, you’ll rid the world of them. But what if I die this way? You’ll die a good person, accomplishing a noble act. Since we definitely have to die, no one can be found who isn’t doing something, whether it’s farming or digging or trading or governing, or dealing with indigestion or diarrhea. So, what do you want Death to find you doing? As for me, I will choose some work that is humane, helpful, social, and noble. But if I can’t be doing something that grand, then at least I’ll be doing what no one can stop me from doing—what I can do, which is working on myself, improving my ability to handle situations, finding peace, and fulfilling my obligations in life; and if I succeed in that, then moving on to the third topic of philosophy, which deals with the security of judgments.

1373. If Death shall find me in the midst of these studies, it shall suffice me if I can lift up my hands to God and say, The means which thou gavest me for the perceiving of thy government, and for the following of the same, have I not neglected: so far as in me lies, I have not dishonored thee. Behold how I have used my senses, and my natural conceptions. Have I ever blamed thee? was I ever offended at aught that happened, or did I desire it should happen otherwise? Did I ever desire to transgress my obligations? That thou didst beget me I thank thee for what thou gavest. I am content that I have used thy gifts so long. Take them again, and set them in what place thou wilt, for thine were all things, and thou gavest them me.

1373. If Death finds me in the middle of these studies, I’ll be satisfied if I can raise my hands to God and say, The abilities you gave me to understand your governance and to follow it, I have not neglected: to the best of my abilities, I have not dishonored you. Look at how I have used my senses and my natural understanding. Have I ever blamed you? Was I ever upset about anything that happened, or did I wish it would happen differently? Did I ever want to break my commitments? For giving me life, I thank you for what you provided. I am grateful that I have utilized your gifts for this long. Take them back whenever you wish and place them wherever you like, for everything is yours, and you entrusted them to me.

4. Is it not enough to depart in this condition? and what life is better and fairer than one like this, and what end more happy?

4. Is it not enough to leave in this state? And what life is better and fairer than one like this, and what ending could be more joyful?


CHAPTER XXI.

differences.

1. When a raven croaks you a bad omen, be not carried away by the appearance; but straightway distinguish with yourself and say, None of these things bodes aught to myself, but either to this poor body or this wretched property of mine, or to my good repute, or to my children, or to my wife. But to me all138 omens are fortunate if I choose to have it so. For whatever of these things may come to pass, it lies with me to have it serve me.

1. When a raven calls out a bad omen, don’t get swayed by how it looks; instead, take a moment to reflect and think, None of these things mean anything to me, but maybe to this poor body, this wretched property of mine, my good name, my children, or my wife. But for me, all138 omens are good if I decide they are. Whatever happens, it’s up to me to make it work for me.

2. You may be always victorious if you will never enter into any contest but where the victory depends upon yourself.

2. You can always win if you only compete in situations where your success relies solely on you.

3. When you shall see a man honored above others, or mighty in power, or otherwise esteemed, look to it that thou deem him not blessed, being carried away by the appearance. For if the essence of the Good be in those things that are in our own power, then neither envy nor jealousy have any place, nor thou thyself shalt not desire to be commander or prince or consul, but to be free. And to this there is one road—scorn of the things that are not in our own power.

3. When you see a man honored above others, or powerful, or otherwise respected, make sure you don’t mistake him for being truly blessed just because of appearances. If the essence of what is good comes from things within our control, then there's no room for envy or jealousy, and you won’t find yourself wanting to be a commander, prince, or consul, but instead desiring to be free. There’s only one way to achieve this—by disregarding the things that are outside our control.

4. Remember, it is not he that strikes or he that reviles that doth any man an injury, but the opinion about these things, that they are injurious. When, then, some one may provoke thee to wrath, know that it is thine own conception which hath provoked thee. Strive, therefore, at the outset not to be carried away by the appearance; for if thou once gain time and delay, thou wilt more easily master thyself.

4. Remember, it's not the person who hits or insults you who truly hurts you, but your belief that these actions are harmful. So, when someone tries to anger you, realize that it's your own thoughts that have stirred those feelings. Therefore, try not to get swept up by what seems to be happening right away; if you can take a moment and hold back, you'll find it easier to control yourself.

5. Death and exile, and all things that appear dreadful, let these be every day before thine eyes. But Death most of all; for so thou wilt neither despise nor too greatly desire any condition of life.

5. Death and exile, along with everything that seems terrifying, keep these in view every day. But focus especially on Death; because by doing so, you won’t look down on or overly crave any situation in life.


CHAPTER XXII.

that a man is enough on his own.

1. If thou set thine heart upon philosophy, prepare straightway to be laughed at and mocked by many who will say, Behold, he has suddenly come back to us a philosopher; or, How came you by that brow of scorn? But do thou cherish no scorn, but hold to those things that seem to thee the best, as one set by God in that place. Remember, too, that if thou abide in that way, those that first mocked thee, the same shall afterwards reverence thee; but if thou yield to them, thou shalt receive double mockery.

1. If you set your heart on philosophy, get ready to be laughed at and mocked by many who will say, Look, he’s suddenly returned as a philosopher; or, How did you get that look of disdain? But don’t hold onto any scorn; instead, stick to what you believe is best, as someone chosen by God for that path. Remember, too, that if you stay true to that path, those who first mocked you will later respect you; but if you give in to them, you'll face double the mockery.

2. If it shall ever happen to thee to be turned to outward things in the desire to please some person, know that thou hast lost thy way of life. Let it be enough for thee in all things to be a philosopher. But if thou desire also to seem one, then seem so to thyself, for this thou canst.

2. If you ever find yourself focused on external things just to please someone else, know that you've lost your path in life. It's enough for you to just be a philosopher in everything. But if you also want to appear like one, then at least appear that way to yourself, because you can do that.


CHAPTER XXIII.

that each person completes their own job.

1. Let such thoughts never afflict thee as, I shall live unhonored, and never be anybody anywhere. For if lack of honor be an evil,140 thou canst no more fall into evil through another’s doings than into vice. Is it, then, of thy own doing to be made a governor, or invited to feasts? By no means. How, then, is this to be unhonored? How shouldst thou never be anybody anywhere, whom it behooves to be somebody only in the things that are in thine own power, wherein it lies with thee to be of the greatest worth?

1. Let such thoughts never trouble you, like, I'm going to live without honor and never mean anything anywhere. Because if being without honor is bad,140 you can't fall into that kind of evil just because of someone else's actions, just as you can't fall into wrongdoing. So, is it really up to you to become a leader or to be invited to parties? Definitely not. Then how is that being unrecognized? How could you never mean anything anywhere when you should only focus on being somebody in the areas that you control, where you have the power to be of the greatest value?

2. But I shall not be able to serve my friends. How sayst thou? to serve them? They shall not have money from thee, nor shalt thou make them Roman citizens. Who, then, told thee that these were of the things that are in our power, and not alien to us? And who can give that which himself hath not?

2. But I won't be able to help my friends. What do you mean? Help them? They won’t get any money from you, nor can you make them Roman citizens. So, who told you that these are things we can control and are not out of reach? And who can give what they don’t have themselves?

3. Acquire, then, they say, that we may possess. If I can acquire, and lose not piety, and faith, and magnanimity withal, show me the way, and I will do it. But if ye will have me lose the good things I possess, that ye may compass things that are not good at all, how unjust and unthinking are ye? But which will ye rather have—money, or a faithful and pious friend? Then, rather take part with me to this end; and ask me not to do aught through which I must cast away those things.

3. Get what you can, they say, so that we may own. If I can get something and not lose my kindness, faith, and generosity in the process, show me how, and I’ll do it. But if you want me to give up the good things I already have just so you can get things that aren’t good at all, how unfair and thoughtless are you? So, what would you prefer—money or a loyal and faithful friend? Then, support me in this and don’t ask me to do anything that would make me lose those worthwhile things.

4. But, he saith, I shall not do my part in serving my country. Again, what is this service? Thy country shall not have porticos nor baths from thee, and what then?141 Neither hath she shoes from the smith, nor arms from the cobbler; but it is enough if every man fulfill his own task. And if thou hast made one other pious and faithful citizen for her, art thou, then, of no service? Wherefore, neither shalt thou be useless to thy country.

4. But, he says, I won't do my part in serving my country. Again, what does this service mean? Your country won’t get porticos or baths from you, so what? 141 It doesn't get shoes from the smith either, nor arms from the cobbler; it's enough if everyone fulfills their own role. And if you've created one other loyal and faithful citizen for her, are you then not of any service? Therefore, you won’t be useless to your country.

5. What place, then, he saith, can I hold in the State? Whatever place thou canst, guarding still thy faith and piety. But if in wishing to serve her thou cast away these things, what wilt thou profit her then, when perfected in shamelessness and faithlessness?

5. What role can I have, he says, in the State? Whatever role you can have, as long as you maintain your faith and integrity. But if in trying to serve her you abandon these things, what will you gain for her then, when you become completely shameless and unfaithful?


CHAPTER XXIV.

the world's cost for what it's worth.

1. Is some one preferred before thee at a feast, or in salutation, or in being invited to give counsel? Then, if these things are good, it behooves thee rejoice that he hath gained them; but if evil, be not vexed that thou hast not gained them; but remember that if thou act not as other men to gain the things that are not in our own power, neither canst thou be held worthy of a like reward with them.

1. Is someone preferred above you at a feast, in greetings, or when being invited to give advice? If these things are good, you should be happy for them; but if they are bad, don’t be upset about not having them. Remember that if you don’t act like others to pursue things that are beyond our control, you cannot be considered worthy of the same rewards as they are.

2. For how is it possible for him who will not hang about other men’s doors to have a like reward with him who doth so? or him who will not attend on them with him who142 doth attend? or him who will not flatter them with the flatterer? Thou art unjust, then, and insatiable, if thou desire to gain those things for nothing, without paying the price for which they are sold.

2. How can someone who won’t wait around at other people’s doors expect to get the same reward as someone who does? Or someone who won’t support them compare to someone who does? Or someone who won’t flatter them be on the same level as the flatterer? You are being unfair and greedy if you want to get those things without paying the price they’re worth.

3. But how much is a lettuce sold for? A penny, perchance. If any one, then, will spend a penny, he shall have lettuce; but thou, not spending, shalt not have. But think not thou art worse off than he; for as he has the lettuce, so thou the penny which thou wouldst not give.

3. But how much is lettuce sold for? A penny, maybe. So if anyone is willing to spend a penny, they can get lettuce; but if you don’t spend, you won’t have any. But don’t think you’re worse off than they are; because just as they have the lettuce, you have the penny that you refused to part with.

4. And likewise in this matter. Thou art not invited to some man’s feast? That is, for thou gavest not to the host the price of the supper; and it is sold for flattery, it is sold for attendance. Pay, then, the price, if it will profit thee, for which the thing is sold. But if thou wilt not give the price, and wilt have the thing, greedy art thou and infatuated.

4. And in this situation, it's the same. You're not invited to someone’s party? That's because you didn't pay the host for the meal; it’s purchased with flattery, it’s purchased with attendance. So pay the price if it will benefit you, for which the thing is sold. But if you're not willing to pay and still want it, you're being greedy and foolish.

5. Shalt thou have nothing, then, instead of the supper? Thou shalt have this—not to have praised one whom thou hadst no mind to praise, and not to have endured the insolence of his door-keepers.

5. Will you have nothing, then, instead of dinner? You will have this—not having praised someone you didn’t want to praise, and not having put up with the rudeness of his doormen.


CHAPTER XXV.

goals of nature.

1. The will of Nature is to be learned from matters which do not concern our143selves.1 Thus, when a boy may break the cup of another man, we are ready to say, It is a common chance. Know, then, that when thine own is broken, it behooves thee to be as though it were another man’s. And apply this even to greater things. Has another man’s child died, or his wife? who is there that will not say, It is the lot of humanity. But when his own may die, then straightway it is, Alas, wretched that I am! But we should bethink ourselves what we felt on hearing of others in the same plight.

1. The will of Nature is to be understood through situations that don’t involve us personally.1431 So, when a boy breaks someone else's cup, we readily say, It’s just bad luck. Know that when your own cup is broken, you should respond as though it belongs to someone else. Apply this to bigger issues, too. If another person’s child or spouse dies, who would say, It’s just part of being human? But when their own loved one is at risk of dying, they quickly exclaim, Oh, how miserable I am! We should remind ourselves of what we felt when hearing about others in the same situation.

2. As a mark is not set up to be missed, even so the nature of evil exists not in the universe.

2. Just as a target is not meant to be missed, the nature of evil does not exist in the universe.


CHAPTER XXVI.

mental security.

If any one should set your body at the mercy of every passer-by, you would be indignant. When, therefore, you set your own mind at the mercy of every chance, to be troubled and perturbed when any one may revile you, have you no shame of this?

If anyone were to leave your body at the mercy of every person who walks by, you would be outraged. So, when you allow your own mind to be at the mercy of every random event, getting upset and disturbed whenever someone insults you, don't you feel any shame about that?


CHAPTER XXVII.

that a man should be a single individual.

1. In every work you will take in hand mark well what must go before and what144 must follow, and so proceed. For else you shall at first set out eagerly, as not regarding what is to follow; but in the end, if any difficulties have arisen, you will leave it off with shame.

1. In every task you take on, pay attention to what should come before and what144 should come after, and then move forward. Otherwise, you might start out excitedly, not thinking about what’s ahead; but in the end, if challenges arise, you might quit feeling embarrassed.

2. So you wish to conquer in the Olympic games? And I, too, by the Gods; and a fine thing it would be. But mark the prefaces and the consequences, and then set to work. You must go under discipline, eat by rule, abstain from dainties, exercise yourself at the appointed hour, in heat or cold, whether you will or no, drink nothing cold, nor wine at will; in a word, you must give yourself over to the trainer as to a physician. Then in the contest itself there is the digging race,1 and you are like enough to dislocate your wrist, or turn your ankle, to swallow a great deal of dust, to be soundly drubbed, and after all these things to be defeated.

2. So you want to win at the Olympics? I do too, by the Gods; it would be amazing. But pay attention to the preparation and the consequences, and then get to work. You have to follow a strict regimen, stick to a diet, avoid treats, train at the scheduled time, in hot or cold weather, whether you like it or not, drink nothing cold, and don’t drink wine at your leisure; in short, you have to submit yourself to the coach like you would to a doctor. Then, during the actual competition, there’s the digging race,1 and you might dislocate your wrist, twist your ankle, swallow a bunch of dust, get beaten badly, and still end up losing.

3. If, having considered these things, you are still in the mind to enter for the contest, then do so. But without consideration you will turn from one thing to another like a child, who now plays the wrestler, now the gladiator, now sounds the trumpet, then declaims like an actor; and so you, too, will be first an athlete, then a gladiator, then an orator, then a philosopher, and nothing with your whole soul; but as an ape you will mimic everything you see, and be charmed with one thing after another. For you approached nothing with consider145ation nor regularity, but rashly, and with a cold desire.

3. If, after thinking this over, you still want to enter the contest, then go for it. But if you don’t think it through, you’ll just jump from one thing to another like a child, who one moment plays the wrestler, then the gladiator, then blows the trumpet, and then acts like a performer; and you'll end up being first an athlete, then a gladiator, then an orator, then a philosopher, and truly committed to nothing. Instead, you’ll mimic everything you see like a monkey, getting excited about one thing after another. Because you didn’t approach anything with careful thought or consistency, but acted impulsively and with a lack of passion.

4. And thus some men, having seen a philosopher, and heard discourse like that of Euphrates2 (yet who indeed can say that any discourse is like his?), desire that they also may become philosophers.

4. And so some men, after seeing a philosopher and hearing talk like that of Euphrates2 (but really, who can say any talk is like his?), want to become philosophers themselves.

5. But, O man! consider first what it is you are about to do, and then inquire of your own nature whether you can carry it out. Will you be a pentathlos,3 or a wrestler? Then, scan your arms and thighs; try your loins. For different men are made for different ends.

5. But, oh man! First, think about what you’re about to do, and then ask yourself if it's something you can follow through with. Will you be a pentathlete, 3 or a wrestler? Take a look at your arms and legs; test your strength. Different people are made for different purposes.

6. Think you, you can be a sage, and continue to eat and drink and be wrathful and take offense just as you were wont? Nay, but you must watch and labor, and withdraw yourself from your household, and be despised by any serving boy, and be ridiculed by your neighbors, and take the lower place everywhere, in honors, in authority, in courts of justice, in dealings of every kind.4

6. Do you really think you can be wise and still eat, drink, get angry, and take offense the way you used to? No, you need to pay attention and work hard, step away from your home, be looked down upon by any servant, be laughed at by your neighbors, and take the backseat everywhere—in terms of honors, authority, in courts of law, and in all kinds of interactions.4

7. Consider these things—whether you are willing at such a price to gain peace, freedom, and an untroubled spirit. And if not, then attempt it not, nor, like a child, play now the philosopher, then the tax-gatherer, then the orator, then the Procurator of Cæsar. For these things agree not among themselves; and, good or bad, it behooves you to be one man. You should146 be perfecting either your own ruling faculty, or your outward well-being; spending your art either on the life within or the life without; that is to say, you must hold your place either among the sages or the vulgar.

7. Think about this—are you really willing to pay the cost for peace, freedom, and a calm mind? If not, then don't even try, and don't, like a child, switch from being a philosopher to a tax collector, then to a speaker, and then to Caesar’s official. These roles don’t fit together; whether good or bad, you need to be one person. You should146 be working on either your own decision-making skills or your external well-being; focus your efforts on either your inner life or your outer life; in other words, you need to find your place either among the wise or the ordinary.

End of Book 2.


BOOK III.


CHAPTER I.

duties.

1. Obligations are universally defined by the bonds of relation. Is such a man your father? Then it is implied that you are to take care of him, to give place to him in all things, to bear his rebukes, his chastisement. But if he be a bad father? Were you then related by any law of Nature to a good father? Nay, but simply to a father. Your brother does you wrong. Then guard your own place towards him, nor scrutinize what he is doing, but what you may do to keep your will in accord with Nature. For none other shall hurt you, if yourself choose it not, but you shall be hurt then when you conceive yourself to be so.

1. Responsibilities are defined by the relationships we have. Is this person your father? Then, it's understood that you should care for him, prioritize him in everything, and tolerate his criticism and discipline. But what if he is a bad father? Are you then connected by any natural law to a good father? No, just to a father. If your brother wrongs you, then focus on your own behavior toward him, and don't scrutinize what he's doing; instead, consider how to keep your actions aligned with Nature. For no one can truly harm you unless you allow it, and you'll only feel hurt when you believe you are.

2. Thus shall you discover your obligations from the offices of a neighbor, a citizen, a general, if you will accustom yourself to watch the relationships.

2. This way, you'll learn about your responsibilities from the roles of a neighbor, a citizen, or a leader, if you make it a habit to observe the relationships.


CHAPTER II.

against Epicurus.

1. Even Epicurus is conscious that we are by nature social, but having once placed the Good in the husk,1 he cannot thereafter speak anything but what agrees with this; for again he affirms, and rightly affirms, that nothing is to be admired or received that is separated from the nature of the Good. How, then, Epicurus, do you suspect that we are social, if Nature had given us no affection for our offspring?2 Wherefore do you counsel the sage against bringing up children? Why do you fear lest he fall into sorrow by so doing? Doth he fall into sorrow for the mouse that lives in his house? What careth he if a little mouse complain to him at home. But he knows well that if a little child be born, it is no longer in our power not to love it and be anxious for it.

1. Even Epicurus understands that we are naturally social beings, but since he placed the Good in a superficial context,1 he can only express ideas that align with this view; for he insists, and rightly so, that nothing deserves admiration or acceptance that is disconnected from the essence of the Good. So, Epicurus, how can you suggest that we are social creatures if Nature has not given us an instinctual love for our children?2 Why then do you advise the wise person against raising kids? Why are you concerned that this person might experience sadness from doing so? Does he get upset over the mouse living in his home? What does he care if a small mouse complains to him? But he knows well that once a child is born, it’s no longer within our ability to not love and worry about it.

2. Thus, too, he saith that no man of sense will take part in affairs of the state, for he knows what he who takes part in them must do; but what should hinder one to take part, if he may behave among men as in a swarm of flies? But Epicurus,149 knowing these things, dares to say that we should not rear up our children. But even a sheep will not desert its young, nor a wolf; and shall a man? What! will you have us to be silly creatures, like the sheep? Yet they desert not their young. Or savage, like wolves? Yet even they desert them not. Come, then, who would obey you if he saw his little child fall on the ground and cry? For my part, I suppose that had it been prophesied to your mother and your father that you would say these things, not even so would they have cast you out.

2. Similarly, he says that no sensible person will get involved in government affairs because they understand what those who participate must endure; but what would stop someone from engaging if they can act among people like they're in a swarm of flies? However, Epicurus,149 aware of these realities, boldly claims that we shouldn't raise our children. Yet even a sheep won't abandon its young, nor will a wolf; and should a man? Yet they do not abandon their young. Or savage, like wolves? Yet even they do not abandon them. Come now, who would follow you if they saw their little child fall and cry? For my part, I think if your mother and father had been foretold that you would say these things, not even then would they have cast you out.

3. But how can it be said of these outward things3 that they are according to Nature, or contrary to Nature? That is to speak as if we were solitary and disunited from others. For to the foot I shall say it is according to Nature that it be clean; but if you take it as a foot, and not as a solitary thing, it shall beseem it to go into the mud, and to tread on thorns, and perchance to be cut off, for the sake of the whole; otherwise it is no longer a foot.

3. But how can we say that these external things3 are in line with Nature or against Nature? That would be like speaking as if we were alone and disconnected from others. For example, I could say it's natural for a foot to be clean; however, if you think of it as just a foot, not as part of a whole, it should ideally step in the mud, walk over thorns, and possibly face injury for the sake of the whole body; otherwise, it no longer functions as a foot.

4. And some such thing we should suppose about ourselves also. What art thou? A man. Look at thyself as a solitary creature, and it is according to Nature to live to old age, to grow rich, to keep good health. But if thou look at thyself as a man, and as a part of a certain Whole, for the sake of that Whole it may become thee now to have sickness, now to sail the seas and run150 into peril, now to suffer need, and perchance to die before thy time.

4. And we should think something similar about ourselves. Who are you? A person. If you see yourself as an individual, it’s natural to live a long life, to become wealthy, and to stay healthy. But if you see yourself as part of a bigger whole, then for the sake of that whole, it might be necessary for you to experience illness, to face dangers at sea, to endure hardships, and maybe even to die before your time.

5. Why, then, dost thou bear it hard? Knowest thou not, that as the foot alone is not a foot, so thou alone art not a man? For what is a man? A part of a polity, first of that which is made up of Gods and men; then of that which is said to be next to the other, which is a small copy of the Universal Polity.

5. So why do you find it difficult to accept? Don't you realize that just as a foot on its own isn't really a foot, you alone aren't a complete man? What is a man, anyway? He is part of a society, first of the one composed of gods and humans; and then of what is considered the next level down, which is a small representation of the Universal Society.

6. Then must I now be brought to trial, and now must another have a fever, and another sail the seas, another die, another be sentenced? Yea, for with such a body, in the bounds of such a universe, in such a throng of inhabitants, it cannot be but that different things of this nature should fall on different persons. This is thy task, then, having come into the world, to speak what thou shouldst, and to order these things as it is fitting.

6. So now I have to go to trial, and someone else has to get a fever, another has to travel the seas, another has to die, and another has to face punishment? Yes, because with a body like this, in a universe like this, filled with so many people, it’s inevitable that different experiences like these will happen to different individuals. This is your responsibility, then, having come into the world: to say what you need to say and to manage these things as they should be.

7. Then some one saith, I charge you with wrong-doing. Much good may it do thee! I have done my part—look to it thyself if thou have done thine, for of this too there is some danger, lest it escape thee.

7. Then someone says, I accuse you of wrongdoing. Hope it helps you! I've done my part—now you should check if you’ve done yours, because there’s also some risk that it might slip your mind.


CHAPTER III.

against the Epicureans and Academics.

1. Beliefs which are sound and manifestly true are of necessity used even by those who deny them. And perhaps a man151 might adduce this as the greatest possible proof of the manifest truth of anything, that those who deny it are compelled to make use of it. Thus, if a man should deny that there is anything universally true, it is clear that he is obliged to affirm the contrary, the negation—that there is nothing universally true. Slave! not even this—for what is this but to say that if there is anything universal it is falsehood?

1. Beliefs that are sound and clearly true are necessarily used even by those who deny them. And maybe someone might argue that the greatest proof of the obvious truth of anything is that those who deny it still have to rely on it. So, if someone denies that there is anything universally true, it's obvious that they have to assert the opposite—that there is nothing universally true. Seriously! Not even that—because what does that imply other than saying that if there is anything universal, it must be a lie?

2. Again, if one should come and say, Know that nothing can be known, but all things are incapable of proof; or another, Believe me, and it shall profit thee, that no man ought to believe any man; or again, another, Learn from me, O man, that it is not possible to learn anything, and I tell thee this, and I will teach thee, if thou wilt—now wherein do such men differ from those—whom shall I say?—those who call themselves Academics? Assent, O men, that no man can assent to aught; believe us that no man can believe any one.

2. Again, if someone comes and says, Know that nothing can be known, and that everything is impossible to prove; or another, Trust me, and it will benefit you, that no one should believe anyone; or again, another, Learn from me, oh man, that it's not possible to learn anything, and I'm telling you this, and I'll teach you if you want;—now how do these people differ from those—who should I say?—those who call themselves Academics? Agree, oh people, that no one can agree on anything; believe us that no one can truly believe anyone.

3. Thus Epicurus, when he would abolish the natural fellowship of men with one another, employeth the very thing that is being abolished. For what saith he? Be not deceived, O men, nor misguided nor mistaken—there is no natural fellowship among reasoning beings, believe me; and those who speak otherwise deceive us with sophisms. What is that to thee? let us be deceived! Will it be the worse for thee if all other men are per152suaded that we have a natural fellowship with one another, and that we should in all ways maintain it? Nay—but much the better and safer. Man, why dost thou take thought for us, and watch at night for our sakes? Why dost thou kindle thy lamp and rise early? why dost thou write so many books, lest any of us should be deceived about the Gods, in supposing that they cared for men? or lest any one should take the essence of the Good to be anything else than Pleasure? For if these things are so, then lie down and sleep, and live the life of a worm, wherefor thou hast judged thyself fit; eat and drink and cohabit and ease thyself and snore. What is it to thee how other men think concerning these matters, whether soundly or unsoundly? What hast thou to do with us? With sheep hast thou some concern, for that they serve us when they are shorn, and when they are milked, and at last when they have their throats cut. Were it not, then, to be desired, if men could be lulled and charmed to slumber by the Stoics, and give themselves to thee and the like of thee, to be shorn and milked? These things shouldst thou say to thy brother Epicureans; but shouldst thou not keep them hidden from other men, and seek in every way to persuade them above all things that we are by nature social, and that temperance is good; in order that everything may be kept for thee? Or should we preserve153 this fellowship with some and not with others? With whom, then, should we preserve it? With those who also preserve it towards us, or with those who transgress it? And who transgress it more than ye, who set forth such doctrines?

3. So Epicurus, when he tries to eliminate the natural connection between people, uses the very thing he wants to get rid of. What does he say? Don’t be fooled, people, or misled or confused—there’s no natural connection among reasoning beings, trust me; and those who say otherwise are just tricking us with arguments. What does that matter to you? Let us be fooled! Will it be worse for you if everyone else believes that we have a natural connection and that we should maintain it in every way? No—it’ll be much better and safer. Why do you care about us, man, and stay up at night for us? Why do you light your lamp and get up early? Why do you write so many books, trying to make sure none of us get confused about the gods, thinking they care about humans? Or that anyone should see the essence of the Good as anything other than Pleasure? If that’s the case, then just lie down and sleep, and live like a worm, since you think you’re fit for it; eat, drink, have sex, relax, and snore. What does it matter to you how others view these things, whether they’re right or wrong? What’s it to you? You care about sheep, because they serve us when they’re sheared, when they’re milked, and in the end when they’re slaughtered. Wouldn’t it be better if people could be lulled into a sleep by the Stoics and just give themselves up to you and people like you, to be shorn and milked? These are the things you should say to your fellow Epicureans; but shouldn’t you keep them hidden from everyone else and do everything you can to persuade them that we are, by nature, social creatures, and that self-control is good? So that everything can be kept for you? Or should we maintain this connection with some people and not with others? With whom, then, should we keep it? With those who also keep it towards us, or with those who violate it? And who violates it more than you, who promote such ideas?

4. What, then, was it that roused up Epicurus from his sleep, and compelled him to write the things he wrote? What else than Nature, the mightiest of all powers in humanity? Nature, that drags the man, reluctant and groaning, to her will. For, saith she, since it seems to thee that there is no fellowship among men, write this down, and deliver it to others, and watch and wake for this, and be thyself by thine own deed the accuser of thine own opinions. Shall we, then, say that Orestes was driven by the Furies and aroused from sleep, and did not crueller Furies and Avengers rouse this man as he slumbered, and suffered him not to rest, but compelled him, as madness and wine the priests of Cybele,1 to proclaim his own evils? So mighty and invincible a thing is man’s nature.

4. So, what was it that woke Epicurus from his sleep and pushed him to write what he did? What else but Nature, the strongest force in humanity? Nature, which drags a person, unwilling and complaining, to comply with her will. For, she says, since it seems to you that there's no connection among people, write this down and share it with others, and stay alert for this, and be your own judge for your own beliefs. Should we then say that Orestes was stirred up by the Furies and awakened from sleep, and that this man wasn't also stirred by even harsher Furies and Avengers as he slept, not letting him rest, but forcing him, like madness and wine compel the priests of Cybele,1 to reveal his own wrongs? Such is the strength and unyielding nature of humanity.

5. For how can a vine be affected, and not in the manner of a vine, but of an olive? Or how, again, can an olive be affected not in the manner of an olive but of a vine? It is impossible, it cannot be conceived. Neither, then, is it possible for a man wholly to lose the affections of humanity, for even eunuchs cannot cut away for themselves the154 desires of men. And thus Epicurus has cut away all that belongs to a man as father of a family, and as citizen, and as friend; but the desires of humanity he hath not cut away, for he could not; no more than these pitiful Academics are able to cast away or to blind their own perceptions, although this is the thing that they have striven with all their zeal to do.

5. For how can a vine be affected, but not like a vine, rather like an olive? Or how can an olive be affected, not like an olive, but like a vine? It's impossible; it can't be understood. Similarly, a person can't completely lose their human feelings, because even eunuchs can't completely eliminate the desires of men for themselves. Thus, Epicurus has removed everything that defines a man as a father, a citizen, and a friend; but he hasn't eliminated the desires of humanity because he couldn't do so—just like these unfortunate Academics can't rid themselves of or blind their own perceptions, even though that’s what they've tried to do with all their effort.

6. How shameful is this! that a man having received from Nature measures and canons for the recognition of truth, should study not to add to them and perfect them where they are wanting, but the very contrary of this; if there be anything that may lead us to the knowledge of the truth, they strive to abolish and destroy it.

6. How shameful is this! That a person who has received from nature the tools and standards for recognizing truth should not try to improve and complete them where they are lacking, but instead do the exact opposite; if there's anything that could help us understand the truth, they work to eliminate and destroy it.

7. What sayest thou, philosopher? religion and holiness, what dost thou take them for?2

7. What do you say, philosopher? What do you think about religion and holiness?2

——“If thou wilt, I shall prove that they are good.”

——“If you want, I will show that they are good.”

So be it; prove it then, in order that our citizens may be converted and honor the Divinity, and be no longer neglectful of the greatest things.

So be it; prove it then, so that our citizens can be transformed and honor the Divine, and stop ignoring the most important matters.

——“Now hast thou received the proofs?”

——“Have you now received the proofs?”

I have, and am thankful therefor.

I have, and I'm grateful for that.

8.——“Now since thou art exceedingly well pleased with these things, hear the contrary: There are no Gods, or if there be, they have no care for men, nor have we any communion with them; and this religion155 and holiness, whereof the multitude babble, is the lying of impostors and sophists, or of legislators, by Zeus! for the frighting and restraining of evil-doers.”

8.——“Now that you’re really happy with all this, let me tell you the opposite: There are no gods, or if there are, they don’t care about humans, and we have no connection with them; and this religion155 and holiness that everyone keeps talking about is just the deceit of frauds and clever speakers, or of lawmakers, I swear! intended to scare and control wrongdoers.”

Well said, philosopher! the citizens shall have much profit of thee! thou hast already brought back all our youths to the contempt of sacred things.

Well said, philosopher! The citizens will benefit greatly from you! You've already led all our young people to disregard sacred things.

——“What now? are these doctrines not pleasing to thee? Learn, then, that Righteousness is nothing, that Reverence is folly, that a father is nothing, a son nothing.”

——“What now? Are these beliefs not appealing to you? Then understand that righteousness means nothing, that respect is foolishness, that a father is nothing, and a son is nothing.”

Well said, philosopher! proceed, persuade the young, that we may multiply the number of those who believe and speak with thee. From these teachings have grown our well-governed States, from these did Sparta spring, and these beliefs, by his laws and discipline, did Lycurgus plant among his people:—That slavery is no more base than honorable, nor to be free men more honorable than base. Through these opinions died those who fell at Thermopylæ, and through what others did the Athenians forsake their city?3

Well said, philosopher! Go ahead, convince the young people so we can increase the number of those who believe and speak with you. Our well-run states have grown from these teachings; from these came Sparta, and these beliefs, along with his laws and discipline, were instilled by Lycurgus among his people:—That slavery is neither more disgraceful than honorable, nor is being free any more honorable than being base. It was through these beliefs that those who fell at Thermopylae died, and what made the Athenians abandon their city? 3

9. Then those who speak such things marry, and beget children, and take part in public affairs, and make themselves priests and augurs—of what? Of beings that do not exist! and they question the Pythian oracle that they may learn falsehoods; and they declare the oracles to others. O monstrous impudence and imposture!

9. Then those who say such things get married, have kids, get involved in politics, and become priests and seers—of what? Of things that don’t even exist! They consult the Pythian oracle just to learn lies; and they share these oracles with others. Oh, what outrageous arrogance and deceit!


CHAPTER IV.

on slavery.

1. A certain man having inquired how one may make his meals in a manner pleasing to the Gods, If he do it uprightly, said Epictetus, and considerately, and equably, and temperately, and orderly, shall it not also be thus pleasing to the Gods? But when you ask for hot water, and the boy does not hear, or, hearing, brings it only luke-warm; or if he is not even to be found in the house, then is it not pleasing to the Gods if you refrain from indignation, and do not burst with passion? How shall one endure such fellows? Wretch, wilt thou not bear with thine own brother, who is of the progeny of Zeus, like a son sprung of the same seed as thyself, and of the same heavenly descent, but thou must straightway make thyself a tyrant, for the place of command in which thou art set? Wilt thou not remember who thou art, and whom thou rulest—that they are kinsmen, brethren by nature, the progeny of Zeus? But I have bought them, and they have not bought me! Seest thou, then, whither thou art looking—towards the earth, towards the pit of perdition, towards these miserable laws of dead157 men? but towards the laws of the Gods thou dost not look.

1. A certain man asked how to prepare meals in a way that pleases the Gods. If he does it with respect, thoughtfulness, balance, moderation, and order, won't it also be pleasing to the Gods? But when you ask for hot water, and the boy doesn’t hear you, or if he brings it only lukewarm, or if he’s not even around, isn’t it pleasing to the Gods if you refrain from getting angry and don’t lose your temper? How can one deal with such people? Come on, will you not be patient with your own brother, who shares the same lineage from Zeus, a descendant of the same source as yourself, and has the same divine heritage? Must you immediately turn into a tyrant just because you’re in a position of authority? Will you not remember who you are and whom you govern—that they are family, naturally brothers, the offspring of Zeus? But I have paid for them, and they haven't paid for me! Do you see where you're looking—toward the earth, toward the pit of despair, toward these pathetic laws of dead157 men? But you fail to look toward the laws of the Gods.

2. That which thou wouldst not suffer thyself, seek not to lay upon others. Thou wouldst not be a slave—look to it that others be not slaves to thee. For if thou endure to have slaves, it seems that thou thyself art first of all a slave. For virtue hath no communion with vice nor freedom with slavery.

2. Don't impose on others what you wouldn't want to endure yourself. If you wouldn't want to be a slave, ensure that others aren't slaves to you. Because if you tolerate having slaves, it suggests that you yourself are the first to be a slave. Virtue has no connection with vice, nor does freedom with slavery.

3. As one who is in health would not choose to be served by the sick, nor that those dwelling with him should be sick, so neither would one that is free bear to be served by slaves, or that those living with him should be slaves.1

3. Just as a healthy person wouldn’t want to be served by someone who is sick, or have those around them be sick, a free person wouldn’t want to be served by slaves, nor have those living with them be slaves.1


CHAPTER V.

To the administrator of the free cities, who was an epicurean.

1. The Administrator1 having visited him (and this man was an Epicurean), It is proper, said Epictetus, that ignorant people like us should inquire of you that are philosophers (as men who come into a strange city make inquiry of the citizens and those familiar with the place) what is the chief thing in the world, to the end that, having learned it, we may go in search of it, and behold it, as men do with objects in the cities.

1. The Administrator1 went to see him (and this guy was an Epicurean). Epictetus said it makes sense for people like us, who don’t know much, to ask you philosophers—just like travelers ask locals for directions when they arrive in a new city—what’s the most important thing in the world. Our goal is to learn it, go look for it, and see it, just like people do with things in cities.

1582. Now, that there are three things with which man is concerned—soul, and body, and the outer world—scarce any one will deny. It remaineth, then, for men like ye to answer which is the chief of these things? What shall we declare to men? Is it the flesh? And was it for this that Maximus sent forth his son, and sailed with him through the tempest as far as Cassiope,2 for somewhat that he should feel in the flesh?

1582. It’s clear that there are three things that concern humans—soul, body, and the outer world—almost no one would dispute this. So, it’s up to people like you to decide which of these is the most important. What should we tell others? Is it the body? And was it for this reason that Maximus sent his son away and braved the storm all the way to Cassiope,2 just so that he could experience something in the body?

3. But the Epicurean denying this, and saying, God forbid, Epictetus said:

3. But the Epicurean denied this, saying, God forbid, Epictetus replied:

Is it not fit, then, that we should be zealous about that, the chief thing?

Isn't it appropriate, then, that we should be enthusiastic about that, the most important thing?

——“Of all things most fit.”

"Most suitable of all things."

What, then, have we greater than the flesh?

What, then, do we have that's better than the flesh?

——“The soul,” he said.

"The soul," he stated.

And the good of the chief thing, is it greater than the good of the lower thing?

And is the good of the most important thing greater than the good of the less important thing?

——“The good of the chief thing is greater.”

——“The benefit of the main thing is greater.”

And the good things of the soul, are they in the power of the Will, or beyond the Will?

And are the good things of the soul within the power of the Will, or are they beyond it?

——“They are in the power of the Will.”

——“They are under the control of the Will.”

The pleasure of the soul, then, is within the power of the Will?

The joy of the soul, then, is within the control of the Will?

He assented.

He agreed.

And this pleasure itself, whence may it arise? From itself? But this is inconceivable; for we must suppose some original substance of the Good, whereof the soul159 doth make us sensible when we light upon it.

And where does this pleasure come from? From itself? That doesn’t make sense; we have to assume there’s some original source of the Good, which the soul159 makes us aware of when we encounter it.

This, too, he admitted.

This, too, he acknowledged.

Wherein, then, are we sensible of this spiritual pleasure? for if it be in spiritual things, the nature of the Good is discovered. For the Good cannot be something different from the thing that justly delights us; nor, if the original thing be not good, can aught be good that proceeds from it; for, in order that the thing proceeding may be good, the original thing must be good also. But this ye would never say, if ye had your wits, for so ye would speak things that agree not with Epicurus and the rest of your opinions. It remains, then, that we are conscious in bodily things of this pleasure of the soul, and again, that these are the original things and the very substance of the Good.3

Where, then, do we feel this spiritual pleasure? Because if it exists in spiritual matters, then we uncover the true nature of the Good. The Good cannot be something separate from what genuinely brings us joy; nor can anything derived from something that's not good be good itself. For something to be good, its source must also be good. But you wouldn't claim that if you were thinking straight, as that would contradict Epicurus and your other beliefs. Therefore, it seems that we find this pleasure of the soul in physical things, and these are the original things and the very essence of the Good.3

4. Wherefore Maximus did foolishly if he made his voyage for the sake of anything else than the flesh; that is, than the chief thing. And any man doth foolishly who restraineth himself from others’ good, if he be a judge, and able to take them. But, if you please, let us regard this only, how it may be done secretly and safely, and so that none may know it. For neither does Epicurus himself declare stealing to be bad, but only to be caught stealing; and because it is impossible to be certain of no discovery, therefore he saith, Ye shall not steal. But I say that if we steal with skill and discretion,160 we shall not be caught. And, moreover, if we have powerful friends among men and women at Rome, and the Greeks are feeble, no one will dare to go thither on this score. Why do you refrain from your own good? This is foolish—this is absurd. But not even if you tell me you do refrain will I believe you. For, as it is impossible to assent to anything that appeareth to be a falsehood or to turn away from what appeareth to be true, even so it is impossible to withhold oneself from anything that appeareth to be good. But riches are a good, and, at all events, the most potent means of pleasure. Wherefore, then, not compass them? And why not corrupt our neighbor’s wife, if we may do it secretly? and also, if the husband talk nonsense about it, let us fling him out! If you will be a true and perfect philosopher, and obedient to your own doctrines, thus must you do; but if you do not, you differ no whit from us that are called Stoics. For truly we ourselves say one thing and do another; we speak fair and honest things, and do vile ones. But the opposite distemper will be thine—a vile creed and honorable deeds.

4. So, Maximus acted foolishly if he went on his journey for any reason other than physical pleasure, which is the main thing. Anyone who holds back from helping others, especially if they're in a position of power to do so, is also acting foolishly. But let's focus on this: how can we do it discreetly and safely, so that no one knows? Epicurus himself doesn’t say stealing is wrong, just getting caught. Since we can never be sure we won’t get caught, he says, You shall not steal. But I argue that if we steal with skill and care,160 we won’t be caught. Plus, if we have influential friends in Rome and the Greeks are weak, no one will dare approach us about it. Why hold back from doing good for yourself? That’s foolish and ridiculous. Even if you tell me you hold back, I won’t believe you. Just as it’s impossible to agree with something that seems false or to turn away from what seems true, it’s also impossible to resist anything that appears to be good. And wealth is good, and certainly the most powerful source of pleasure. So why not pursue it? And why not seduce our neighbor’s wife if we can do it without being noticed? And if the husband complains, let’s just get rid of him! If you want to be a true and perfect philosopher and stick to your beliefs, then this is how you should act; if not, you’re no different from us Stoics. We often say one thing and do another; we talk about truth and integrity but act in vile ways. But you, on the other hand, will have a vile belief system and honorable actions.

5. And you think, God help you! of a city of Epicureans? I do not marry. Nor I; for it is not right to marry, nor beget children, nor take part in public affairs. What will come to pass then? Whence shall we have citizens? who shall educate161 them? who shall be the overseer of youth?4 who the director of gymnastics? and how shall the youth be trained up? as the Lacedæmonians? or as the Athenians? Take me a youth, and bring him up after these doctrines of thine! Evil are they, subversive of States, mischievous to households, unbecoming to women. Abandon them, man! Thou dwellest in a chief city; it is thy part to rule, to judge righteously, to refrain from other men’s goods; nor must any woman seem beautiful to thee save thine own wife, nor vessel of gold or silver. Seek for doctrines in harmony with these words, from which setting out thou mayest with gladness abandon things so potent to attract and overcome. But if beside the seduction of these things we have sought out some philosophy like this that pushes us towards them, and confirms us in them, what shall come of it?

5. And you really think, God help you, about a city full of pleasure-seekers? I don’t want to marry. Me neither; it’s not right to marry, have kids, or get involved in public life. So what’s going to happen then? Where will we get citizens? Who will educate161 them? Who will oversee the young people?4 Who will direct the gym classes? And how will the youth be trained? Like the Spartans? Or like the Athenians? Take a young person and raise them based on your ideas! They’re harmful, destructive to communities, damaging to families, and inappropriate for women. Give them up, man! You live in a major city; it’s your duty to lead, to judge fairly, and to avoid taking what belongs to others; no woman should seem attractive to you except your own wife, nor any gold or silver vessels. Look for beliefs that match these principles, from which you can happily turn away from things that are so tempting and overpowering. But if, alongside the attraction of these things, we’ve chosen a philosophy that encourages us toward them and keeps us anchored in them, what’s going to happen?

6. In the graver’s work, which is the chief thing? the silver or the art? The substance of the hand is flesh, but the main things are the works of the hand. The obligations, therefore, are also three—those that concern us, firstly, in that we are; and secondly, as we are; and thirdly, the main things themselves. And thus in man, too, it is not meet to value the material, this flesh, but the main things. What are these? To take part in public affairs, to marry, to beget children, to fear God, to care for parents,162 and, in general, to pursue, to avoid, to desire, to dislike, as each of these things should be done, as Nature made us to do. And how made she us? To be free, generous, pious. For what other creature blushes? what other is capable of the sense of shame?

6. In the graver’s work, what’s more important—the silver or the art? The material is flesh, but what really matters are the creations of the hand. So, there are also three responsibilities we have—first, simply because we exist; second, as we are; and third, the essential things themselves. Similarly, in humans, we shouldn’t focus on the material, this flesh, but on the essentials. What are these? Taking part in public life, getting married, having children, fearing God, caring for parents,162 and generally, striving, avoiding, wanting, disliking, as each of these should be done, as Nature intended us to do. And how did she create us? To be free, generous, and pious. Which other creature blushes? Which one has the capacity for shame?

7. And to these things let Pleasure be subject as a minister, a servant, that she may summon forth our ardor, and that she also may aid in works that are according to Nature.5

7. And to these things let Pleasure be a servant, helping us ignite our passion and assisting in actions that align with Nature.5

8. ——“But I am a wealthy man, and have no need of aught.”

8. ——“But I’m a wealthy man and don’t need anything.”

Why, then, dost thou profess philosophy? Thy vessels of gold and vessels of silver are enough for thee; what need hast thou of doctrines?

Why, then, do you follow philosophy? Your gold and silver vessels are enough for you; what do you need doctrines for?

——“But I am also a judge of the Greeks!”

——“But I am also a judge of the Greeks!”

Dost thou know how to judge—who made thee know?

Do you know how to judge—who taught you?

——“Cæsar wrote me a commission.”

“Caesar sent me a commission.”

Let him write thee a commission to be a judge of music, and what help will it be to thee? And how didst thou become a judge? by kissing of what man’s hand? Was it that of Symphorus or Numenius? Before whose bed-chamber didst thou sleep? To whom didst thou send gifts? Dost thou not perceive, then, that to be a judge is worth just as much as Numenius is worth?

Let him give you a commission to be a music judge, and how will that help you? And how did you become a judge? By kissing whose hand? Was it Symphorus or Numenius? Whose bedroom did you wait outside? To whom did you send gifts? Don't you see that being a judge is only worth as much as Numenius is worth?

——“But I can cast into prison whom I will.”163

——“But I can throw anyone I want into prison.”163

As if he were a stone.

As if he were a rock.

——“But I can flog any man I will.”

——“But I can whip any man I want.”

As if he were an ass. This is no government of men. Rule us as reasoning beings; show us what is for our good, and we shall follow it; show us what is for our ill, and we shall turn away from it; make us emulators of thyself, as Socrates made his disciples. He, indeed, was one that governed men as men, who made them subject unto him in their pursuit and their avoidance, their desire and dislike. Do this, do not this, or I will cast thee into prison. This is not the rule of reasoning beings. But, As Zeus hath ordered, so do thou act; but if thou dost not, thou shall suffer loss and hurt. What hurt? None other than this—not to have done what it behooved thee to do. Thou shall lose faith, piety, decency—look for no greater injuries than these.

As if he were an idiot. This isn't a government of people. Rule us as thinking individuals; show us what’s good for us, and we’ll follow it; show us what’s bad for us, and we’ll turn away; help us become like you, just as Socrates did with his followers. He truly governed people as people, making them adhere to him in their pursuits and aversions, their wants and dislikes. Do this, don’t do that, or I will throw you in jail. This is not how thinking beings should be ruled. But, As Zeus has commanded, so you should act; if you don’t, you’ll face loss and suffering. What kind of suffering? No other than this—not having done what you should have. You will lose faith, decency, and piety—don’t expect worse injuries than these.


CHAPTER VI.

on political strategy.

1. Not with the stones of Eubœa and Sparta let the structure of your city walls be variegated; but let the discipline and teaching that comes from Greece penetrate with order the minds of citizens and statesmen. For with the thoughts of men are cities well established, and not with wood and stone.

1. Don't let the walls of your city be made up of the stones from Eubœa and Sparta; instead, let the knowledge and discipline that comes from Greece bring order to the minds of citizens and leaders. Because cities are built on people's ideas, not just on wood and stone.

1642. If thou wouldst have a household well established, then follow the example of the Spartan Lycurgus. For even as he did not fence the city with walls, but fortified the inhabitants with virtue, and so preserved the city free for ever, thus do thou not surround thyself with a great court and set up lofty towers, but confirm the dwellers in the house with good-will, and faith, and friendliness, and no harmful thing shall enter; no, not if the whole army of evil were arrayed against it.

1642. If you want to establish a strong household, then look to the example of Spartan Lycurgus. Just as he didn't protect the city with walls, but strengthened the people with virtue, keeping the city safe forever, you should not surround yourself with a large entourage or build tall towers. Instead, build your home on goodwill, faith, and friendliness, and nothing harmful will come in; not even if the entire army of evil is against it.

3. Which of us will not admire Lycurgus, the Lacedæmonian? For having lost an eye at the hands of one of the citizens, and having received the young man from the people that he should punish him as he would, he refrained from this; but having taught him and proved him to be a good man, he brought him into the theater. And when the Lacedæmonians marveled, I received this man from you, he said, insolent and violent; I give him back to you mild and civil.

3. Which of us doesn’t admire Lycurgus, the Spartan? After losing an eye at the hands of one of the citizens, he was given the young man by the people to punish him however he wanted, but he chose not to. Instead, he taught him and proved him to be a good person, and then he brought him into the theater. When the Spartans were amazed, he said, I received this man from you, rude and aggressive; I return him to you gentle and respectful.


CHAPTER VII.

about friendship.

1. Whereinsoever a man is zealous, this, it is fair to suppose, he loveth. Are men, then, zealous for evil things? Never.1 Or, perchance, for things which do not concern them? Nor for them either. It remaineth,165 then, that they are zealous about good things only; and that if they are zealous about them, they also love them. Whosoever, then, hath understanding of good things, the same would know how to love. But he who is not able to distinguish good things from evil, and things that are neither from both, how could this man yet be capable of loving? To love, then, is a quality of the wise alone.

1. Wherever a person is passionate, it's fair to assume they love that thing. Do people get passionate about bad things? Never.1 Or, perhaps, about things that don't concern them? Not for those either. It remains,165 then, that they're only passionate about good things; and if they're passionate about them, they also love them. Anyone who understands good things would know how to love. But if someone can't tell good from evil, and things that are neither from both, how could that person possibly be capable of love? So, to love is a trait of only the wise.

2. And how is this, saith one, for I am foolish, and none the less do I love my child. By the Gods! I wonder, then, how you have begun by confessing yourself to be foolish. For wherein do you lack? Do you not use your senses? do you not judge of appearances? do you not bring to the body the nourishment it needeth, and the covering and habitation? Wherefore, then, confess yourself to be a fool? Because, forsooth, you are often perplexed by appearances, and troubled, and you are vanquished by their plausibility; and you take the same things to be now good, and now evil, and then indifferent; and, in a word, you grieve and fear and envy, and are troubled, and changed—for these things you confess yourself a fool.

2. And how is this, says someone, for I am foolish, and yet I love my child. By the Gods! I wonder how you've begun by admitting you're foolish. What do you lack? Don't you use your senses? Don't you evaluate appearances? Don't you provide your body with the nourishment it needs, as well as shelter and a home? So why do you call yourself a fool? Because, truthfully, you often get confused by appearances and feel troubled, and you are swayed by what seems plausible; and you sometimes see things as good, sometimes as bad, and then as indifferent; and, in short, you grieve, you fear, you envy, and you feel troubled and change—it's for these reasons that you confess you're a fool.

3. But do you never change in love? But is it wealth, and pleasure, and, in short, things, alone that you sometimes take to be good and sometimes evil? and do you not take the same men to be now good, now166 evil? and sometimes you are friendly disposed towards them, and sometimes hostile? and sometimes you praise them, and sometimes you blame?

3. But don’t you ever change in love? Is it just wealth, pleasure, and, in short, things that you sometimes see as good and sometimes as bad? And don't you view the same people as good one moment and bad the next? Sometimes you feel friendly towards them, and other times you feel hostile? And sometimes you praise them, and other times you criticize?

——“Yea, even so I do.”

"Yeah, I do."

What then? a man who hath been deceived about another, is he, think you, his friend?

What then? Do you think a man who has been misled about someone else is really his friend?

——“Assuredly not.”

“Definitely not.”

And one who hath taken a friend out of a humor for change, hath he good-will towards him?

And if someone has taken a friend out of a mood just for a change, does he really care for him?

——“Nor he either.”

“Neither did he.”

And he who now reviles another, and afterwards reveres him?

And the person who insults someone now, will they respect them later?

——“Nor he.”

“Neither did he.”

What then? Sawest thou never the whelps of a dog, how they fawn and sport with each other, that you would say nothing can be more loving? But to know what friendship is, fling a piece of flesh among them, and thou shalt learn. And cast between thee and thy child a scrap of land, and thou shalt learn how the child will quickly wish to bury thee, and thou wilt pray that he may die. And then thou wilt say, What a child have I nourished! this long time he is burying me! Throw a handsome girl between you, and the old man will love her, and the young too;2 and if it be glory, or some risk to run, it will be on the same fashion. You will speak the words of the father of Admetus3:—

What then? Have you never seen the puppies of a dog, how they play and romp together, making you think nothing could be more affectionate? But to really understand what friendship is, toss a piece of meat among them, and you’ll find out. And if you place a small piece of land between you and your child, you’ll see how quickly the child will wish to bury you, and you’ll find yourself wishing for their death. Then you’ll say, What a child I have raised! For so long, they are burying me! Throw a beautiful girl between you, and the old man will love her, as will the young one; and if it’s about glory or some danger to face, it will be the same way. You will echo the words of the father of Admetus:—

"Does the day make you happy? Don’t you think it makes me happy too?" "You love the light; do you think I love the dark?"

Think you this man did not love his own child when it was little? nor was in agony if it had a fever? nor said many a time, Would that I had the fever rather than he! Then when the trial cometh and is near at hand, lo, what words they utter! And Eteocles and Polyneices,4 were they not children of the same mother and the same father? were they not brought up together, did they not live together, drink together, sleep together, and often kiss one another? So that any one who saw them, I think, would have laughed at the philosophers, for the things they say perversely about friendship. But when royalty, like a piece of flesh, hath fallen between them, hear what things they speak:—

Do you really think this man didn't love his own child when he was little? Was he not in pain when he had a fever? Did he not wish many times, “I wish I had the fever instead of him!” But then, when the trial comes and is right in front of them, look at what they say! Eteocles and Polyneices,4 weren't they children of the same mother and father? Didn't they grow up together, live together, drink together, sleep together, and often kiss one another? Anyone who saw them would probably have laughed at the philosophers for their twisted ideas about friendship. But when royalty gets in the way like a piece of meat, listen to what they say:—

Pol. Where wilt thou stand before the towers?

Pol. Where will you stand in front of the towers?”

Et. Wherefore seekest thou to know?

"Et. Why are you seeking to know?"

Pol. There I too would stand and slay thee.

Pol. I would also stand there and kill you.

Et. Thou hast spoken my desire.”

"Et. You've expressed my wish."

4. For universally, be not deceived, nothing is so dear to any creature as its own profit. Whatsoever may seem to hinder this, be it father or child or friend or lover, this he will hate and abuse and curse. For Nature hath never so made anything as to love aught but its own profit: this is father and brother and kin and country and God. When, then, the Gods appear to hinder us in168 this, we revile even them, and overthrow their images and burn their temples; as Alexander, when his friend died, commanded to burn the temples of Esculapius.

4. For universally, don't be fooled, nothing is more important to any creature than its own gain. Whatever seems to get in the way of this, whether it's a father, child, friend, or lover, they will hate, insult, and curse. Nature has never created anything that would love anything other than its own benefit: this is what family, country, and even God mean to us. So when the Gods appear to obstruct us in168 this, we even insult them and destroy their images and burn their temples; just like Alexander, who ordered the burning of the temples of Esculapius when his friend died.

5. Therefore, if a man place in the same thing both profit and holiness, and the beautiful and fatherland, and parents and friends, all these things shall be saved; but if he place profit in one thing, and friends and fatherland and kinsfolk, yea, and righteousness itself some other where, all these things shall perish, for profit shall outweigh them. For where the I and the Mine are, thither, of necessity, inclineth every living thing: if in the flesh, then the supremacy is there; if in the Will, it is there; if in outward things, it is there. If, then, mine I is where my Will is, thus only shall I be the friend I should be, or the son or the father. For my profit then will be to cherish faith and piety and forbearance and continence and helpfulness; and to guard the bonds of relation. But if I set Myself in one place and Virtue some otherwhere, then the word of Epicurus waxeth strong, which declareth that there is no Virtue, or, at least, that Virtue is but conceit.

5. So, if a person values profit and goodness, beauty, their country, parents, and friends all together, then they will all thrive. But if they prioritize profit over friends, their country, family, and even morality, everything will fall apart, because profit will always take precedence. Wherever our desires and possessions lie, that's where all living things are drawn: if it's about physical needs, that's where the focus will be; if it's about our will, it's there; if it's about material things, that's the priority. If my sense of self is aligned with my will, then I'll truly be the friend, son, or father I'm meant to be. My true interest will be to foster faith, goodness, patience, self-control, and helpfulness, while also maintaining our family ties. However, if I place my identity in one area and virtue in another, then the words of Epicurus gain credibility, suggesting that virtue doesn't exist, or at least, that it's just an illusion.

6. Through this ignorance did Athenians and Lacedæmonians quarrel with each other, and Thebans with both of them, and the Great King with Hellas, and Macedonians with both of them, and even now Romans with Getæ; and through this yet earlier the wars of Ilion arose. Paris was the guest169 of Menelaus; and if any one had seen how friendly-minded towards each other they were, he would have disbelieved any one who said they were not friends. But a morsel was flung between them—a fair woman, and about her there was war. And now when you see friends or brothers that seem to be of one mind, argue nothing from this concerning their friendship; nay, not if they swear it, not if they declare that they cannot be parted from each other. For in the ruling faculty of a worthless man there is no faith; it is unstable, unaccountable, victim of one appearance after another. But try them, not, as others do, if they were born of the same parents and nurtured together, and under the same tutor; but by this alone, wherein they place their profit, whether in outward things or in the will. If in outward things, call them no more friends than faithful or steadfast or bold or free; yea, nor even men, if you had sense. For that opinion hath nothing of humanity that makes men bite each other, and revile each other, and haunt the wildernesses, or the public places, like the mountains,5 and in the courts of justice to show forth the character of thieves; nor that which makes men drunkards and adulterers and corruptors, nor whatever other ills men work against each other through this one and only opinion, that They and Theirs lie in matters beyond the Will. But if you hear, in sooth,170 that these men hold the Good to be there only where the Will is, where the right use of appearances is, then be not busy to inquire if they are father and son, or brothers, or have long time companied with each other as comrades; but, knowing this one thing alone, argue confidently that they are friends, even as they are faithful and upright. For where else is friendship than where faith is, where piety is, where there is an interchange of virtue, and none of other things than that?

6. Because of this ignorance, the Athenians and Spartans argued with each other, and the Thebans with both, and the Great King with Greece, and the Macedonians with both, and even now the Romans with the Getae; and earlier, this led to the wars of Troy. Paris was a guest of Menelaus; and if anyone had seen how friendly they were with each other, they would have doubted anyone who claimed they were not friends. But a tempting piece came between them—a beautiful woman, and war broke out over her. So now, when you see friends or brothers who seem to be in agreement, don’t assume anything about their friendship; not even if they swear it or say they can’t be separated. Because a worthless person has no true loyalty; their intentions are shaky and unpredictable, swayed by changing appearances. But test them not, as others do, by whether they share the same parents or grew up together, or were taught by the same mentor; instead, judge them by where they find their benefit, whether in external things or in their will. If it’s in external things, call them no better than loyal or strong or brave or free; in fact, not even men, if you have any sense. Because that mindset lacks the humanity that makes people turn against each other, insult each other, and roam the wilds or public spaces, like in the mountains, and in courtrooms to showcase the behavior of thieves; nor does it lead to drunkenness, infidelity, and corruption, nor to whatever other harm people inflict on each other due to this one misguided belief that their worth lies in things beyond the Will. But if you hear, truly, that these people believe the Good exists only where the Will is, where appearances are used rightly, then don’t waste time wondering if they are father and son, or brothers, or have been longtime friends; just know this one thing, and confidently conclude that they are friends, just as they are trustworthy and righteous. For where else is friendship found but where there is faith, where there is piety, where there is a mutual exchange of virtue, and none of anything else?

7. But such a one hath shown kindness to me so long, and is he not my friend? Slave, whence knowest thou if he did not show thee kindness as he wipes his shoes or tends his beast? Whence knowest thou if, when thy use is at an end as a vessel, he will not cast thee away like a broken plate? But she is my wife, and we have lived together so long? And how long lived Eriphyle with Amphiaraus, and was the mother, yea, of many children? But a necklace came between them.6 But what is a necklace? It is the opinion men have concerning such things. That was the wild beast nature, that was the sundering of love, that which would not allow the woman to be a wife, or the mother a mother. And of you, whosoever hath longed either to be a friend himself or to win some other for a friend, let him cut out these opinions, let him hate them and drive them from his soul.

7. But someone has been kind to me for such a long time, and isn't he my friend? Slave, how do you know that he didn't show you kindness just while he wipes his shoes or takes care of his animal? How do you know that when you're no longer useful to him, like a vessel, he won’t just toss you aside like a broken plate? But she is my wife, and we’ve been together for so long? And how long did Eriphyle live with Amphiaraus, and she was the mother, yes, of many children? But a necklace came between them.6 But what is a necklace? It's just what people think about such things. That was the wild beast of nature, that was the destruction of love, preventing the woman from being a true wife, or the mother from being a real mother. And if anyone has ever longed to be a friend themselves or to gain someone as a friend, they should cut out these opinions, hate them, and drive them from their soul.

1718. And thus he will not revile himself, nor be at strife with himself, nor be variable, nor torment himself. And to another, if it be one like himself, he will be altogether as to himself, but with one unlike he will be forbearing and gentle and mild, ready to forgive him as an ignorant man, as one who is astray about the greatest things; but harsh to no man, being well assured of that dogma of Plato, that no soul is willingly deprived of the truth.

1718. So he won’t criticize himself, get into conflict with himself, change his mind, or cause himself distress. And with someone like him, he will be entirely himself, but with someone different, he will be patient, kind, and gentle, ready to forgive them for being ignorant or lost regarding the most important things; yet, he won't be harsh with anyone, fully believing in Plato's principle that no soul willingly ignores the truth.

9. But otherwise you may do all things whatsoever, even as friends are wont to do, and drink together, and dwell together, and voyage together, and be born from the same parents, for so are snakes; but friends they are not, nor are ye, so long as ye hold these accursed doctrines of wild beasts.

9. But other than that, you can do whatever you want, just like friends usually do: hang out, drink together, travel together, and come from the same parents, just like snakes do; but they are not friends, and neither are you, as long as you hold on to these cursed beliefs of wild animals.


CHAPTER VIII.

time and change.

1. Let not another’s vice be thy evil. For thou wast not born to be abject with others, or unfortunate with others, but to prosper with them. But if any one is unfortunate, remember that it is of his own doing. For God hath made all men to be happy, and of good estate. For this end hath He granted means and occasions, giving172 some things to each man as his own concern, and some things as alien; and the things that are hindered and subject to compulsion and lost are not his own concern, and those that are unhindered are; and the substance of Good and of Evil, as it were worthy of Him that careth for us and doth protect us as a father, He hath placed among our own concerns.

1. Don't let someone else’s faults become your problems. You weren’t meant to be burdened by others’ struggles or misfortunes, but to thrive alongside them. However, if someone is facing hardships, keep in mind that it’s because of their own choices. God created everyone to be happy and to live well. To achieve this, He has provided resources and opportunities, giving172 each person some things to care for themselves and some things that belong to others. What is hindered and forced upon us and what is lost isn’t our concern; rather, what is free and within our control is. The essence of Good and Evil, which is important to Him who cares for us and protects us like a father, has been placed among our personal responsibilities.

2.——“But I have parted from such a one, and he is grieved.”

2.——“But I have separated from someone like that, and he is upset.”

For why did he deem things alien to be his own concern? Why, when he rejoiced to see thee, did he not reason that thou wert mortal, and apt to travel to another land? Therefore doth he pay the penalty of his own folly. But thou, for what cause or reason dost thou bewail thyself? Hast thou also given no thought to these things; but like silly women consorted with all that pleased thee as though thou shouldst consort with them forever, places and persons and pastimes? and now thou sittest weeping, because thou canst see the same persons and frequent the same places no longer. This, truly, is what thou art fit for, to be more wretched than crows and ravens that can fly whithersoever they please, and change their nests, and pass across the seas, nor ever lament nor yearn for what they have left.

Why did he think things that weren’t his to worry about? Why, when he was happy to see you, didn’t he realize that you were mortal and could go somewhere else? So now, he faces the consequences of his own foolishness. But you, why do you feel sorry for yourself? Haven’t you thought about these things either? Like foolish women, you mingled with everything that made you happy as if you would be with them forever—places, people, and activities? And now you sit here crying because you can’t see those same people or visit those same places anymore. Honestly, this is what you deserve, to be more miserable than crows and ravens that can fly wherever they want, change their nests, and cross the seas without ever mourning or longing for what they’ve left behind.

——“Yea, but they are thus because they are creatures without reason.”173

——“Yeah, but they are like that because they are creatures without reason.”173

To us, then, was Reason given by the Gods for our misfortune and misery? that we should be wretched and sorrowful forever? Let all men be immortal, forsooth, and no man migrate to another land, nor let us ourselves ever migrate, but remain rooted to one spot like plants; and if one of our companions go, let us sit down and weep, and if he return, dance and clap hands like children!

To us, then, was Reason given by the gods for our misfortune and misery? That we should be miserable and sad forever? Let all people be immortal, for sure, and no one move to another place, nor should we ever leave, but stay rooted in one spot like plants; and if one of our friends leaves, let us sit down and cry, and if he comes back, let’s dance and clap like kids!

3. Shall we not now at last wean ourselves, and remember what we heard from the philosophers? if, indeed, we did not listen to them as a wizard’s incantation. For they said that the universe is one Polity, and one is the substance out of which it is made, and there must, of necessity, be a certain cycle, and some things must give place to others, some dissolving away, and others coming into being, some abiding in one place, and others being in motion. But all things are full of love, first of the Gods, then of men, that are by nature made to have affection towards each other; and it must needs be that some dwell with each other, and some are separated, rejoicing in those who are with them, and not distressed for those who go away. And man, they said, is magnanimous by nature, and contemneth all things beyond the Will; and hath also this quality, not to be rooted to one spot, nor grown into the earth, but able to go from place to place, sometimes urged174 by divers needs, sometimes for the sake of what he shall see.

3. Should we finally let go of our old ways and remember what we heard from the philosophers? If we didn't listen to them like it was some sort of magical spell. They said that the universe is one community and that everything is made from the same substance, and there must be a cycle where some things give way to others, some fade away, and others come into existence, some stay put while others move around. But everything is filled with love, first from the Gods and then from people, who are naturally inclined to care for one another; it’s only natural that some live together and some are apart, finding joy in those who are with them and not feeling sad about those who leave. And humans, they said, are naturally noble, looking down on everything beyond their will, and they have this ability to not be stuck in one place or rooted in the ground, but can move from one location to another, sometimes driven by different needs, and other times just for the sake of seeing something new.

4. And such was the case with Ulysses:—

4. And that was the situation with Ulysses:—

“The cities of many peoples and minds of men he knew.”—Od. i. 3.

“The cities of many people and the thoughts of men he knew.” —Od. i. 3.

And yet earlier with Hercules, who went about the whole earth—

And yet earlier with Hercules, who traveled all over the world—

“All disorders of men and orderly rule to see,” —Od. xvii. 487,

“All the problems of men and the need for order to observe,” —Od. xvii. 487,

casting out and purging the one, and bringing in the other in its place. And how many friends, think you, had he in Thebes? how many in Argos? how many in Athens? and how many did he gain in his journeyings? And he took a wife, too, when it seemed to him due time, and begat children, and left them behind him, not with lamentations or regrets, nor leaving them as orphans; for he knew that no man is an orphan, but that there is an Eternal Father who careth continually for all. For not of report alone had he heard that Zeus is the Father of men, whom also he thought to be his own father, and called Him so, and all that he did, he did looking unto Him. And thus it was that he was able to live happily in every place.

casting out the old and bringing in the new. And how many friends do you think he had in Thebes? How many in Argos? How many in Athens? And how many did he make during his travels? He took a wife when he felt it was the right time, had children, and left them behind, not with sorrow or regrets, nor did he leave them as orphans; for he understood that no one is truly an orphan, but that there is an Eternal Father who cares for everyone continuously. He didn't just hear about Zeus being the Father of men; he believed Zeus was his own father, and he called Him that, doing everything in His sight. And that's how he managed to live happily wherever he went.

5. For never can happiness and the longing for what is not exist together. For Happiness must have all its will. It is like unto one that hath eaten and is filled; thirst175 will not sort with it, nor hunger. But Ulysses longed for his wife, and lamented as he sat on the rock.1 And do you, then, follow Homer and his stories in everything? Or if he did in truth lament, what else was he than an unfortunate man? And what good man is unfortunate? Verily, the Whole is ill-governed if Zeus taketh no care of his own citizens, that they like himself may be happy; but these things it is not lawful nor pious even to think of. But Ulysses, if indeed he lamented and complained, was not a good man. For what good man is there that knoweth not who he is? and who knoweth this who forgets that things which come into existence also perish, and that no two human beings dwell together forever? To aim, then, at things which are impossible is a contemptible and foolish thing; it is the part of a stranger and alien in God’s world who fights against God in the one way he can—by his own opinions.

5. Happiness and the desire for what you don’t have can’t exist at the same time. Happiness must have its own way. It’s like someone who has eaten and is full; thirst175 doesn’t mix with it, nor does hunger. But Ulysses missed his wife and mourned as he sat on the rock.1 So, do you really follow Homer and his stories in everything? Or if he truly mourned, wasn’t he just an unfortunate man? And what good person is unfortunate? Truly, everything is poorly managed if Zeus doesn’t care for his own people, so they can be happy like him; but it’s neither lawful nor respectful to even think about such things. But if Ulysses really did lament and complain, then he wasn’t a good man. For what good person doesn’t know who they are? And who knows this who forgets that everything that comes into being also dies, and that no two people stay together forever? So striving for impossible things is a ridiculous and foolish act; it’s what an outsider does in God’s world, fighting against God in the only way he can—by his own opinions.

6. But my mother laments if she sees me not. And wherefore hath she never learned these teachings? Yet, I say not that it is no concern of ours to prevent her grieving; but that we should not absolutely, and without exception, desire what is not our own. And the grief of another is another’s, and my grief is mine own. I will, therefore, absolutely end mine own grief, for this I can; and that of another according to my means, but this I will not attempt absolutely.176 For otherwise I shall be fighting with God. I shall be opposing and resisting Him in the government of the Whole; and of this strife against God, this obstinacy, not only my children’s children, but I myself, too, shall pay the penalty by day and night; for I shall leap from my bed at visions of the night, confounded, trembling at every news, having my peace at the mercy of letters of other persons. A messenger hath come from Rome; God grant it be no evil. But what evil can come upon thee there, where thou art not? There is a message from Greece; God grant it be no evil. And thus to thee every place may be a source of misfortune. Is it not enough for thee to be unfortunate where thou art, and not also across the sea, and by writings? Is this the security of thine affairs? But what if my friends which are abroad die there? What else than that creatures destined to die have died? And how dost thou desire to live to old age, and never to see the death of any whom thou lovest? Knowest thou not that in a great length of time many and various things must chance; that a fever shall overthrow one, and a robber another, and a tyrant another? Such is our environment, such our companions; cold and heat, and improper ways of living, and journeyings, and voyagings, and winds, and various circumstances will destroy one man, and exile another, and cast another into an embassy, and another into a campaign. Sit177 down, then, terrified at all these things; grieve and fail, and be unfortunate; depend on others, and that not on one or two, but myriads upon myriads.

6. But my mom worries if she doesn't see me. And why has she never learned these lessons? Yet, I'm not saying it's not our duty to ease her pain; it’s just that we shouldn't completely, without any exceptions, want what isn’t ours. The grief of another belongs to that person, and my grief belongs to me. I will, therefore, completely put an end to my own grief, because I can do that; and for someone else's grief, I will help as I can, but I won’t try to eliminate it completely.176 Otherwise, I would be fighting against God. I would be opposing and resisting Him in governing the Whole; and for this struggle against God, this stubbornness, not only my descendants but I myself will pay the price day and night; for I will wake from my bed at night, confused, trembling at every piece of news, with my peace at the mercy of other people's letters. A messenger has arrived from Rome; God, let it be no bad news. But what bad news could reach you there, where you are not? There’s a message from Greece; God, let it be no bad news. And so every place might bring you misfortune. Isn't it enough for you to be unfortunate where you are, without also worrying about things happening overseas and in letters? Is this the security of your situation? But what if my friends abroad die there? What else could happen but that living beings destined to die have died? And how do you expect to grow old and never see the death of anyone you love? Don’t you know that over a long period, many various things must happen; that illness will take one person, a thief another, and a tyrant another? Such is our environment, such are our companions; cold and heat, bad living conditions, travels, journeys, winds, and various circumstances will ruin one person, exile another, put someone else into an embassy, and another into a campaign. So, sit177 down, terrified by all these things; grieve and struggle, and be unfortunate; depend on others, and not just one or two, but countless people.

7. Is this what you heard, is this what you learned from the philosophers? Know you not that our business here is a warfare? and one must watch, and one go out as a spy, and one must fight? All cannot be the same thing, nor would it be better if they were. But you neglect to do the bidding of the commander, and complain when he hath laid somewhat rougher than common upon you; and you mark not what, so far as in you lies, you are making the army to become, so that if all copy you, none will dig a trench, none will cast up a rampart, none will watch, none will run any risk, but each will appear worthless for warfare. Again, in a ship, if you go for a sailor, take up one place, and never budge from it; and if you are wanted to go aloft, refuse; or to run upon the prow, refuse; and what captain will have patience with you? Will he not cast you out like some useless thing, nothing else than a hindrance and bad example to the other sailors?

7. Is this what you heard and learned from the philosophers? Don't you realize that we’re in a battle here? One person has to keep watch, another has to go out as a scout, and someone has to fight. Not everyone can do the same thing, and it wouldn’t be better if they did. But you ignore the orders of the commander and complain when he puts more pressure on you than usual; you don’t see how, as far as you’re concerned, you’re turning the army into something unproductive. If everyone acts like you, no one will dig a trench, build a rampart, keep watch, or take any risks, and everyone will end up being useless when it comes to warfare. Similarly, on a ship, if you become a sailor, claim one spot and never move from it; if you’re asked to go up the mast or run to the bow, just refuse; what captain will put up with that? Won’t he throw you overboard like a dead weight, just a nuisance and a bad example to the other sailors?

8. And thus here also: the life of every man is a sort of warfare, and a long one, and full of divers chances. And it behooveth a man to play a soldier’s part, and do all at the nod of his commander; yea, and if it be possible, to divine what he intendeth. For that commander is not such a one as this,178 neither in power nor in exaltation of character. You are set in a great office, and in no mean place, but are a Senator forever. Know you not that such a one can attend but little to his household, but he must be oftentimes abroad, ruling or being ruled, or fulfilling some office, or serving in the field, or judging? And will you, then, desire to be fixed and rooted like a plant in the same place? For it is pleasant. Who denies it? But so is a dainty pleasant, and a fair woman is pleasant. How otherwise are those wont to speak who make pleasure their end? See you not what kind of men they are whose words you utter? They are the words of Epicureans and profligates. And doing the works of these men, and holding their doctrines, wilt thou speak to us with the speech of Zeno and Socrates?

8. And so it is here too: every person's life is a kind of battle, a long one, filled with various opportunities and challenges. It’s important for someone to act like a soldier, following orders from their leader; and if possible, to anticipate what they have in mind. That leader is not like this one, 178, either in power or in honor. You hold a significant position, not a small one, but you are a Senator forever. Don’t you realize that someone in that position can’t focus much on their home? They have to be away often, either leading or being led, taking care of duties, serving in the military, or judging others. And would you then want to be stuck and grounded like a plant in the same spot? Because it’s nice. Who would deny that? But so is a delightful meal, and a beautiful woman is nice. Isn’t it obvious what kind of people speak like this? They sound like Epicureans and debauchers. By following their ways and believing what they say, will you talk to us with the philosophies of Zeno and Socrates?

9. Will you not fling away from you as far as you can these alien sentiments wherewith you adorn yourself, which beseem you not at all? What other desire have such men than to sleep their fill unhindered, and when they have risen, to yawn for languor, and wash their face, and write and read whatever pleaseth them; then have some trivial talk, and be praised by their friends, whatever they say; then go forth to walk about, and having done this a little, go to the baths; then eat; then retire to rest—such a rest as is the wont of such men, and why need we say what, for it is easily179 guessed? Come, tell me, then, thine own way of life, such as thou desirest, O thou votary of the truth, and of Socrates and Diogenes! What wilt thou do in Athens? these very things, or others? Why, then, dost declare thyself a Stoic? Are not they sorely punished which falsely pretend to be Roman citizens; and should those go free who falsely pretend to so great and reverend a calling and name? or let this indeed be impossible; but this is the law, divine and mighty, and not to be escaped, that layeth the greatest punishments on the greatest sinners. For what saith this law? He who pretendeth to things that are not his own, let him be a cheat and braggart; he that is disobedient to the divine government, let him be an abject, a slave, let him grieve and envy and pity2—in a word, let him be misfortunate, and mourn.

9. Will you not get rid of these foreign feelings that you wear like accessories but that don’t suit you at all? What other desire do such people have than to sleep as much as they want, and when they wake up, to yawn from laziness, wash their face, and read or write whatever they like; then enjoy some light conversation, and be praised by their friends, no matter what is said; then go out for a walk, and after doing that for a bit, head to the baths; then eat; and then retire to rest—such a rest as is typical for such people, and why even say what it is? It’s easy to guess. Come on, tell me about your way of life, the one you desire, oh you follower of truth, and of Socrates and Diogenes! What will you do in Athens? These same things, or something different? Why, then, do you declare yourself a Stoic? Are those who falsely claim to be Roman citizens not severely punished; and should those who falsely claim such a great and esteemed position go unpunished? Or maybe that's impossible; but this is the law, divine and powerful, and unavoidable, that imposes the harshest punishments on the greatest wrongdoers. For what does this law say? Let him who pretends to things that aren’t his own be seen as a fraud and a braggart; let him who disobeys the divine order be a wretch, a slave, let him suffer and be envious and pitiful—in short, let him be unfortunate and mourn.

10.——“And now will you have me attend upon such a one, and hang about his doors?”

10.——“And now will you have me wait on someone like that and loiter around his doors?”

If Reason demand it, for the sake of country, of kinsmen, of mankind, wherefore shouldst thou not go? Thou art not ashamed to go to the doors of a cobbler when thou art in want of shoes, nor to those of a gardener for lettuces; and why to those of a rich man when thou art in need of some like thing?

If reason requires it, for the sake of your country, your family, and humanity, why shouldn’t you go? You’re not embarrassed to visit a cobbler when you need shoes, or a gardener for lettuce; so why should you feel awkward seeking help from a wealthy person when you need something similar?

——“Yea, but I have no awe of the cobbler.”180

——“Yeah, but I’m not afraid of the cobbler.”180

Then have none of the rich.

Then have none of the wealthy.

——“Nor will I flatter the gardener.”

——“I won't flatter the gardener either.”

And do not flatter the rich.

Don't flatter the rich.

——“How, then, shall I gain what I want?”

——“So, how can I get what I want?”

Did I say to thee, Go, for the sake of gaining it; or did I not only say, Go, that thou mayest do what it beseems thee to do.

Did I say to you, Go, for the sake of gaining it; or did I only say, Go, so that you can do what you should do?

——“And why, then, should I yet go?”

——“So why should I go now?”

That thou mayest have gone; that thou mayest have played the part of a citizen, of a brother, of a friend. And, for the rest, remember that the shoemaker, the vegetable-seller, to whom thou didst go, hath nothing great or exalted to give, even though he sell it dear. Thy aim was lettuces; they are worth an obol, they are not worth a talent. And so it is here. Is the matter worth going to the rich man’s door for? So be it; I will go. Is it worth speaking to him about? So be it; I will speak. But must I also kiss his hand, and fawn upon him with praise? Out upon it! that is a talent’s worth. It is no profit to me, nor to the State, nor to my friends, that they should lose a good citizen and friend.

You might have gone; you might have acted like a citizen, a brother, a friend. And, remember, the shoemaker, the vegetable vendor you visited, has nothing great or special to offer, even if he sells it for a high price. Your goal was lettuces; they’re worth a small coin, not a fortune. It’s the same here. Is it worth going to the rich man's door? Fine, I’ll go. Is it worth talking to him? Fine, I’ll talk. But do I really have to kiss his hand and flatter him? That’s asking too much. It doesn’t benefit me, the community, or my friends to lose a good citizen and friend.

11.——“How, then, shall I become of an affectionate disposition?”

11.——“So, how can I become a loving person?”

In having a generous and happy one. For Reason doth never decree that a man must be abject, or lament, or depend on another, or blame God or man. And thus be thou affectionate, as one who will keep181 this faith. But if through this affection, or what happens to be so called by thee, thou art like to prove a miserable slave, then it shall not profit thee to be affectionate. And what hinders us to love as though we loved a mortal, or one who may depart to other lands? Did Socrates not love his children? Yea, but as a free man; as one who remembered that he must first love the Gods. And, therefore, he never did transgress anything that it becomes a good man to observe, neither in his defense, nor in fixing his punishment, nor beforetime when he was of the Council, nor when he was serving in the field. But we are well supplied with every excuse for baseness; some through children, some through mothers, some through brothers. But it behooveth no man to be unhappy through any person, but happy through all, and most of all through God, which hath framed us to that end.

In having a generous and happy life. For reason never says that a person must be lowly, miserable, dependent on others, or blame God or people. So be affectionate, as one who will hold onto this belief. But if this affection, or whatever you call it, makes you a miserable slave, then being affectionate won’t help you. What stops us from loving as if we loved a person who could leave us for other places? Didn't Socrates love his children? Yes, but as a free man; as someone who remembered he must first love the gods. And so, he never broke any principle that a good person should uphold, neither in his defense, nor in determining his punishment, nor before when he served in the council, nor when he was in the field. Yet we always find excuses for our own shortcomings; some through children, some through mothers, some through brothers. But no one should be unhappy because of another person; instead, we should be happy with everyone, and especially with God, who created us for that purpose.

12. And, for the rest, in all things which are delightful to thee, set before thyself the appearances that oppose them. What harm is it, while kissing thy child, to whisper, To-morrow thou shalt die; and likewise with thy friend, To-morrow thou shall depart, either thou or I, and we shall see each other no more?

12. And, in everything that brings you joy, consider the things that contradict them. What’s the harm in whispering to your child while you kiss them, Tomorrow you will die; and the same with your friend, Tomorrow either you or I will leave, and we won't see each other again?

——“But these are words of ill-omen.”

——“But these are words of bad luck.”

And so are some incantations, but in that they are useful I regard not this; only let them be of use. But dost thou call anything of ill-omen, save only that which betokeneth182 some evil? Cowardice is a word of ill-omen, and baseness and grief and mourning and shamelessness, these words are of ill-omen. And not even them must we dread to speak, if so we may defend ourselves against the things. But wilt thou say that any word is of ill-omen that betokeneth some natural thing? Say that it is of ill-omen to speak of the reaping of ears of corn, for it betokeneth the destruction of the ears—but not of the universe. Say that the falling of the leaves is of ill-omen, and the dried fig coming in the place of the green, and raisins in the place of grapes. For all these things are changes from the former estate to another; no destruction, but a certain appointed order and disposition. Here is parting for foreign lands, and a little change. Here is death—a greater change, not from that which now is to that which is not, but to that which is not now.

And some spells are like that, but I don’t care if they’re useful; just let them be useful. But do you call anything unlucky except for what indicates some kind of evil? Cowardice is an unlucky word, as are disgrace, sorrow, mourning, and shamelessness—these words carry bad omens. Yet we shouldn’t be afraid to speak them if it helps us defend ourselves against those things. But would you say any word is unlucky if it refers to something natural? For example, would it be unlucky to talk about harvesting corn, since it suggests the end of the corn but not the end of the world? Would you say the falling leaves are unlucky, or that dried figs replacing green ones, and raisins taking the place of grapes, are unlucky? All these things represent a change from one state to another; it’s not destruction, just a natural order and arrangement. Here is parting for distant lands, and a small change. Here is death—a greater change, not from what is now to what is not, but to what is not now.


CHAPTER IX.

on being alone.

1. Solitude is the state of one who is helpless. For he who is alone is not therefore solitary; even as he who is in a great company is not therefore not solitary. When, therefore, we have lost a brother or a son or a friend on whom we were wont183 to rest, we say that we are left solitary, and oftentimes we say it in Rome, with such a crowd meeting us and so many dwelling about us, and, it may be, having a multitude of slaves. For the solitary man, in his conception, meaneth to be thought helpless, and laid open to those who wish him harm. Therefore when we are on a journey we then, above all, say that we are solitary when we are fallen among thieves; for that which taketh away solitude is not the sight of a man, but of a faithful and pious and serviceable man. For if to be solitary it sufficeth to be alone, then say that Zeus is solitary in the conflagration,1 and bewails himself. Woe is me! I have neither Hera nor Athene nor Apollo, nor, in short, either brother or son or descendant or kinsman. And so some say he doth when alone in the conflagration. For they comprehend not the life of a man who is alone, setting out from a certain natural principle, that we are by nature social, and inclined to love each other, and pleased to be in the company of other men. But none the less is it needful that one find the means to this also, to be able to suffice to himself, and to be his own companion. For as Zeus is his own companion, and is content with himself, and considereth his own government, what it is, and is occupied in designs worthy of himself; thus should we be able to converse with ourselves, and feel no need of others,184 nor want means to pass the time; but to observe the divine government, and the relation of ourselves with other things; to consider how we stood formerly towards the events that befall us, and how we stand now; what things they are that still afflict us; how these, too, may be healed, how removed; and if aught should need perfecting, to perfect it according to the reason of the case.

1. Aloneness is the state of someone who feels helpless. Just because someone is alone doesn’t mean they are truly solitary; similarly, being in a big crowd doesn’t mean someone is not solitary. So, when we lose a brother, a son, or a friend we relied on, we often say we feel alone, even when surrounded by crowds, and perhaps even having many servants around us. A solitary person tends to feel vulnerable and open to those who might wish them harm. That's why during a journey, we often declare ourselves solitary when we find ourselves among thieves; it's not simply the presence of another person that counteracts loneliness, but the presence of someone loyal, caring, and helpful. If simply being alone makes one solitary, then we could say that Zeus is solitary in the fire, lamenting, “Woe is me! I have neither Hera nor Athena nor Apollo,” lacking any brother, son, descendant, or relative. Some claim he feels this way when he's alone in the fire. They fail to understand the life of a man who is alone, starting from the natural idea that we are social beings, made to love one another and enjoy the company of others. However, it’s also essential to find ways to be self-sufficient and to be your own companion. Just as Zeus is his own companion, content with himself, considering what his governance is and engaging in pursuits worthy of him; we should also be able to converse with ourselves, feel no need for others, and not lack ways to occupy ourselves. Instead, we should observe the divine order and our connection to other things, reflect on how we reacted to past events and how we are doing now—what still troubles us, how we might heal those troubles, how to eliminate them, and if anything needs improvement, we should enhance it according to reason.

2. Ye see now how that Cæsar seemeth to have given us a great peace; how there are no longer wars nor battles nor bands of robbers nor of pirates, but a man may travel at every season, and sail from east to west. But can he give us peace from fever? or from shipwreck? or from fire? or earthquake? or lightning? ay, or from love? He cannot. Or from grief? He cannot. Or from envy? He cannot. Briefly, then, he cannot secure us from any of such things. But the word of the philosophers doth promise us peace even from these things. And what saith it? If ye will hearken unto me, O men, wheresoever ye be, whatsoever ye do, ye shall not grieve, ye shall not be wroth, ye shall not be compelled or hindered, but ye shall live untroubled and free from every ill. Whosoever hath this peace, which Cæsar never proclaimed (for how could he proclaim it?), but which God proclaimed through His word, shall he not suffice to himself when he may be alone? for he beholdeth and considereth,185 Now can no evil happen to me; for me there is no robber, no earthquake; all things are full of peace, full of calm; for me no way, no city, no assembly, no neighbor, no associate hath any hurt. He is supplied by one, whose part that is, with food, by another with raiment, by another with senses, by another with natural conceptions. And when it may be that the necessary things are no longer supplied, that is the signal for retreat: the door is opened, and God saith to thee, Depart.

2. You see now how Caesar seems to have given us great peace; how there are no longer wars or battles or gangs of robbers or pirates, but a person can travel at any time and sail from east to west. But can he protect us from fever? Or from shipwrecks? Or from fire? Or earthquakes? Or lightning? Yes, or from love? He cannot. Or from grief? He cannot. Or from envy? He cannot. In short, he cannot protect us from any of these things. But the philosophers' words promise us peace even from them. And what do they say? If you listen to me, O people, wherever you are, whatever you do, you will not grieve, you will not be angry, you will not be forced or blocked, but you will live untroubled and free from every ill. Whoever has this peace, which Caesar never declared (for how could he declare it?), but which God proclaimed through His word, will he not be sufficient for himself when alone? For he sees and reflects, 185 Now no evil can happen to me; for me there is no robber, no earthquake; all things are full of peace, full of calm; for me no path, no city, no gathering, no neighbor, no companion brings any harm. He is provided for by one, who provides food, by another with clothing, by another with senses, by another with natural thoughts. And when it happens that the necessary things are no longer provided, that is the signal for retreat: the door is opened, and God says to you, Depart.

——“Whither?”

"Where to?"

To nothing dreadful, but to the place from whence thou camest—to things friendly and akin to thee, to the elements of Being. Whatever in thee was fire shall go to fire; of earth, to earth; of air, to air; of water, to water;2 no Hades, nor Acheron, nor Coeytus, nor Phlegethon, but all things are full of Gods and Powers.3 Whoso hath these things to think on, and seeth the sun and the moon and the stars, and rejoiceth in the earth and the sea, he is no more solitary than he is helpless.

To nothing terrible, but to the place you came from—to things that are friendly and similar to you, to the elements of existence. Whatever in you was fire shall return to fire; of earth, to earth; of air, to air; of water, to water;2 no Hades, nor Acheron, nor Coeytus, nor Phlegethon, but everything is filled with Gods and Powers.3 Whoever thinks about these things, and sees the sun and the moon and the stars, and takes joy in the earth and the sea, is no more alone than helpless.

——“What, then, if one come and find me alone and slay me?”

——“What if someone comes and finds me alone and kills me?”

Fool! not thee, but thy wretched body.

Fool! Not you, but your miserable body.

3. Thou art a little soul bearing up a corpse.

3. You are a little soul carrying a corpse.

4. What solitude, then, is there any longer, what lack? Why do we make ourselves worse than children, which, when186 they are left alone, what do they?—they take shells and sand and build up somewhat, and then throw it down, and again build up something else, and so they never lack pastime. And shall I, if ye sail away from me, sit down and weep for that I am left alone and solitary? Shall I have no shells nor sand? But children do these things through their folly, and we through our wisdom are made unhappy.

4. What solitude is there now, what emptiness? Why do we make ourselves worse than children? When they’re left alone, what do they do? They take shells and sand, build something up, then knock it down, and build something new. They never run out of things to do. And should I, if you sail away from me, just sit down and cry because I’m left alone? Should I have no shells or sand? But children do these things out of their innocence, while we, with our knowledge, make ourselves unhappy.


CHAPTER X.

against the hostile and vindictive.

1. To suppose that we shall become contemptible in the eyes of others, unless in some way we inflict an injury on those who first showed hostility to us, is the character of most ignoble and thoughtless men. For thus we say, that a man is to be despised according to his inability to do hurt; but much rather is he to be despised according to his inability to do good.

1. To think that we will be looked down upon by others unless we somehow hurt those who first wronged us is the mindset of the most despicable and careless people. For this leads us to believe that a person should be despised for their inability to cause harm; however, they should be much more despised for their inability to do good.

2. The wise and good man neither strives with any himself, nor in the measure of his power will he allow another to strive. And in this, as in all other things, the life of Socrates is set before us as an example; who did not only himself fly all contention, but also forbade it to others. See in Xenophon’s Symposium how many quarrels he ended;187 and, again, how he bore with Thrasymachus, and how with Polus and with Callicles; and how he endured his wife, and how his son, which opposed him with sophistical arguments. For he remembered very well that no man can command the ruling faculty of another.

2. The wise and good person doesn’t argue with anyone and, to the best of their ability, won’t let anyone else argue either. In this, as in many other ways, Socrates’ life serves as a great example. He not only avoided conflict himself but also discouraged it in others. Look at how many disputes he resolved in Xenophon’s Symposium; 187 and consider how he tolerated Thrasymachus, Polus, and Callicles; how he dealt with his wife and how he handled his son, who challenged him with tricky arguments. He understood very well that no one can control the mind of another.

3. How, then, is there yet any place for contention in one so minded? For what event can amaze him? what appear strange to him? Doth he not look for even worse and more grievous things at the hands of evil men than do befall him? Doth he not count everything for gain which is short of the extreme of injury? Hath such a one reviled thee? Much thanks to him that he did not strike thee. But he did also strike me. Much thanks that he did not wound thee. But he did also wound me. Much thanks that he did not slay thee. For when did he learn, or from whom, that he was a tame animal, and affectionate to others, and that to the wrongdoer the wrong-doing itself is a heavy injury? For since he hath not learned these things, nor believes them, wherefore should he not follow that which appears to be his advantage? Thy neighbor hath flung stones! Hast thou, then, sinned in aught? But he has broken things in the house? And art thou a household vessel? Nay—but a Will.

3. So how can there still be any room for conflict in someone with that mindset? What event can surprise him? What could seem strange to him? Doesn’t he expect even worse and more painful things from evil people than what actually happens to him? Doesn’t he see everything that falls short of the worst harm as a gain? Did someone insult you? Be grateful he didn’t hit you. But he did hit me. Be thankful he didn’t hurt you. But he did hurt me. Be grateful he didn’t kill you. For when did he learn, or from whom, that he should be gentle and caring towards others, and that to the person who does wrong, the wrongdoing itself is a significant injury? Since he hasn’t learned these things or believes them, why shouldn’t he pursue whatever he thinks is to his advantage? Your neighbor threw stones! Have you done anything wrong? But he broke things in the house? And are you just a household item? No—but a Will.

4. What, then, hath been given thee for this occasion? To a wolf it were given to188 bite—to fling more stones. But if thou seek what is becoming for a man, look into thy stores, see what faculties thou hast come here furnished withal. Hast thou the nature of a wild beast? the temper of revenge?

4. So, what have you been given for this occasion? A wolf is given the ability to bite—to throw more stones. But if you’re looking for what’s right for a man, check your resources, see what skills you have brought with you. Do you have the nature of a wild beast? The temperament for revenge?

5. When is a horse in wretched case? When he is bereaved of his natural faculties; not when he cannot crow, but when he cannot run. When is a dog? Not when he cannot fly, but when he cannot track. Is not a man, then, also thus wretched, not when he cannot strangle lions or embrace statues1—for to this he came endowed with no faculties by Nature—but when he hath lost his honesty, his faithfulness? Surely we should meet together and lament over such a man; so great are the evils into which he hath fallen. Not, indeed, that we should lament for his birth, or for his death, but in that while yet living he hath suffered the loss of his own true possessions. I speak not of his paternal inheritance, not of his land, or his house, or his inn, or his slaves (for not one of these things is the true possession of a man, but all are alien, servile, subject, given now to some, now to others, by those that can command them); but of his human qualities, the stamps of his spirit wherewith he came into the world. Even such we seek for also on coins, and if we find them we approve the coins, and if not, we cast them away. What is the stamp of this sestertius? The stamp of Trajan. Then give it me.189 The stamp of Nero.2 Fling it away—it will not pass, it is bad. And so here too. What is the stamp of his mind? He is gentle, social, forbearing, affectionate. Come, then, I receive him, I admit him to citizenship, I receive him as a neighbor, a fellow-traveler. See to it only that he have not Nero’s stamp. Is he wrathful, revengeful, complaining? Doth he, when it may seem good to him, break the heads of all who stand in his way? Why, then, didst thou say he was a man? Shall everything be judged by the bare form? If so, then say that a wax apple is a real apple, and that it has the smell and taste of an apple. But the outward shape doth not suffice, nor are eyes and nose enough to make a man, but he is a man only if he have a man’s mind. Here is one that will not hear reason, that will not submit when he is confuted—he is an ass. In another, reverence hath died—he is worthless, anything rather than a man. This one seeketh whom he may meet and kick or bite—so that he is not even a sheep or an ass, but some kind of savage beast.

5. When is a horse in bad shape? When it has lost its natural abilities; not when it can't crow, but when it can't run. When is a dog? Not when it can't fly, but when it can't track. Is a man not also in a similar state, not when he can't strangle lions or hug statues1—because he didn't come into this world with those abilities—but when he has lost his honesty and loyalty? Surely we should come together and mourn for such a man; the troubles he's fallen into are that serious. Not that we should mourn his birth, or his death, but that while still alive he has lost his true possessions. I'm not talking about his family inheritance, his land, or his house, or his inn, or his slaves (because none of these are a true man's possessions; they are all external, servile, subject, given now to some, now to others, by those who can control them); but about his human qualities, the hallmarks of his spirit that he was born with. We look for these in coins, and if we find them, we accept the coins, and if not, we discard them. What is the hallmark of this money? The hallmark of Trajan. Then give it to me. The hallmark of Nero.2 Throw it away—it won't be accepted, it's worthless. The same goes here. What is the hallmark of his mind? Is he kind, social, patient, loving? If so, I accept him, I welcome him as a citizen, as a neighbor, as a fellow traveler. Just make sure he doesn't carry Nero’s hallmark. Is he angry, vengeful, always complaining? Does he smash the heads of anyone who gets in his way when he feels like it? Then why did you say he was a man? Should everything be judged just by appearances? If so, then you might as well say a wax apple is a real apple because it has the look, smell, and taste of one. But outward appearance isn't enough; having eyes and a nose doesn’t make someone a man. A person is really a man only if they have a man’s mind. Here’s someone who won’t listen to reason, who won’t back down when proven wrong—he’s a fool. In another, respect has died—he's worthless, anything but a man. This one seeks to find someone to kick or bite—so he’s not even a sheep or a donkey, but some kind of wild beast.

6. But this is the nature of every creature, to pursue the Good and fly the Evil; and to hold every man an enemy and a plotter for our woe, were it even a brother, or son, or father, who takes away from us the one, or brings us into the other. For nothing is nearer or dearer to us than the Good. It remains, therefore, if outward things be190 good and evil, that a father is no longer the friend of his sons, nor the brother of his brother, but every place is full of enemies and plotters and slanderers. But if the only Good is that the Will should be as it ought to be, and the only Evil as it ought not, where is there then any place for strife, for reviling? For about what things shall we strive? about those that are nothing to us? and with whom? with the ignorant, the unhappy, with men who are deceived concerning the greatest things?

6. But this is the nature of every creature: to seek out what is good and avoid what is evil; to consider every person an enemy and a schemer against our happiness, even if they are a brother, son, or father, if they take away the good or lead us to the evil. For nothing is closer or more precious to us than the Good. It follows, then, that if external things represent good and evil, a father is no longer a friend to his sons, nor a brother to his brother, but everywhere is filled with enemies, schemers, and slanderers. But if the only Good is when the Will operates as it should, and the only Evil is when it doesn't, then where is the place for conflict or insults? What would we fight about? Over things that mean nothing to us? And with whom? With the ignorant, the unfortunate, with those who are misled about the most important matters?

7. Remembering these things, Socrates managed his own household, enduring a most shrewish wife and an undutiful son. For these doctrines make love in a household, and concord in a State, peace among nations, and gratitude towards God, with boldness in every place, as of one who hath to do with things alien to him, and of no estimation. And we are the men to write and read these things, and to applaud them when they are delivered to us, but to the belief of them we have not even come near. And therefore that saying concerning the Lacedæmonians,

7. Keeping these things in mind, Socrates managed his household, putting up with a very difficult wife and a disobedient son. These teachings foster love in the home, harmony in a state, peace among nations, and gratitude towards God, along with the confidence to deal with matters that are foreign and of little importance. We are the ones who write and read these ideas, and we cheer for them when they're presented to us, but we haven't even begun to truly believe in them. And that's why the saying about the Spartans,

“Lions at home, but in Ephesus foxes,”3

“Lions at home, but in Ephesus, foxes,”3

will fit us too—lions in the school and foxes without.

will fit us too—lions in the school and foxes outside.

End of Book 3.


BOOK IV.


CHAPTER I.

of faith.

1. Of religion towards the Gods, know that the chief element is to have right opinions concerning them, as existing and governing the whole in fair order and justice; and then to set thyself to obey them, and to yield to them in each event, and submit to it willingly, as accomplished under the highest counsels. For so shalt thou never blame the Gods, nor accuse them, as being neglectful of thee.

1. Of religion towards the Gods, understand that the main aspect is to have correct beliefs about them, as they exist and oversee everything in fairness and justice; then, commit yourself to obeying them, accepting whatever happens, and willingly submitting to it, as it is guided by the highest wisdom. In doing so, you will never blame the Gods or accuse them of being neglectful towards you.

2. But this may come to pass in no other way than by placing Good and Evil in the things that are in our own power, and withdrawing them from those that are not; for if thou take any of these things to be good or evil, then when thou shalt miss thy desire, or fall into what thou desirest not, it is altogether necessary that thou blame and hate those who caused thee to do so.

2. But this can only happen by recognizing that Good and Evil are in our control and separating them from what isn’t; because if you consider any of these things as good or evil, then when you don’t get what you want or end up with what you don’t want, you’ll inevitably blame and resent those who led you to that point.

3. For every living thing was so framed by Nature as to flee and turn from things, and the causes of things, that appear hurt192ful, and to follow and admire things, and the causes of things, that appear serviceable. For it is impossible that one who thinketh himself harmed should delight in that seemeth to harm him, even as he cannot delight in the very harm itself.

3. Every living thing was created by Nature to escape from harmful things and their causes, and to pursue and appreciate things and their causes that seem beneficial. It’s impossible for someone who thinks they are being harmed to take pleasure in what seems to hurt them, just as they cannot enjoy the harm itself.

4. And thus it comes that a father is reviled by his son when he will not give him of the things that appear to be good. And this it was that set Polyneices and Eteocles at war with each other—the opinion, namely, that royalty is a good. And through this the Gods are railed on by the husbandman and the sailor, by the merchant, and men who lose their wives or children. For where advantage is, there also is religion. Thus he who is careful to pursue and avoid as he ought, is careful, at the same time, of religion.

4. And so it happens that a son disrespects his father when he won't give him what he believes are good things. This was what caused Polyneices and Eteocles to go to war against each other—specifically, the belief that royalty is something valuable. Because of this, farmers, sailors, merchants, and people who lose their wives or children often complain about the Gods. Where there's benefit, there's also faith. Therefore, someone who is careful to seek out what is good and avoid what is bad also takes care of their faith at the same time.

5. But it is fitting also that every man should pour libations and offer sacrifices and first-fruits after the customs of his fathers, purely, and not languidly nor negligently, nor, indeed, scantily, nor yet beyond his means.

5. But it's right for everyone to make offerings and sacrifices, including first-fruits, according to their family traditions—wholeheartedly, not half-heartedly or carelessly, and not too little or more than they can afford.


CHAPTER II.

of fate.

1. Concerning the Gods, there are some who say that a Divine Being does not exist; and others, that it exists indeed, but is idle193 and uncaring, and hath no forethought for anything; and a third class say that there is such a Being, and he taketh forethought also, but only in respect of great and heavenly things, but of nothing that is on the earth; and a fourth class, that he taketh thought of things both in heaven and earth, but only in general, and not of each thing severally. And there is a fifth class, whereof are Odysseus and Socrates, who say, Nor can I move without thy knowledge.1

1. About the Gods, some people claim that a Divine Being doesn’t exist; others argue that it does exist, but is inactive193 and indifferent, without any concern for anything; a third group believes there is such a Being, and He does care, but only about important and celestial matters, not about anything on earth; a fourth group thinks He cares about both heavenly and earthly matters, but only in a general way, not about each individual thing. Then there’s a fifth group, including Odysseus and Socrates, who say, I couldn’t move without your knowledge.1

2. Before all things, then, it is necessary to investigate each of these opinions, whether it be justly affirmed or no. For if there be no Gods, how can the following of the Gods be an end? And if there are Gods, but such as take no care for anything, then also how can the following of them be truly an end? And how, again, if the Gods both exist and take care for things, yet if there be no communication from them to men, yea, by Zeus, and even to mine own self? The wise and good man, having investigated all these things, will submit his own mind to Him that governeth the Whole, even as good citizens to the laws of their State.

2. So, first of all, we need to look into each of these opinions to see if they are truly valid. If there are no gods, how can following them be a meaningful goal? And if there are gods who don’t care about anything, then again, how can following them really be a goal? What if the gods exist and care about things, but there’s no communication from them to humans, including myself, by Zeus? A wise and good person, after considering all these points, will align their thoughts with the one who governs everything, just like good citizens follow the laws of their country.

3. But a certain man having inquired how one could be persuaded that every one of his actions is observed by God, Doth it not appear to you, said Epictetus, that all things are united in One?

3. But a certain man asked how someone could be convinced that every one of their actions is watched by God. "Does it not seem to you," said Epictetus, "that all things are connected in One?"

——“It doth so appear.”

“It does seem so.”

What then? Think you not that a sym194pathy exists between heavenly and earthly things?

What now? Do you not think that there’s a connection between heavenly and earthly things?

——“I do think it.”

"I do believe that."

For how else do plants, as if at the command of God, when He bids them, flower in due season? and shoot forth when He bids them shoot, and bear fruit when He bids them bear? and ripen when He bids them ripen? and again they drop their fruit when He bids them drop it, and shed their leaves when He bids them shed them? and how else at His bidding do they fold themselves together, and remain motionless and at rest? And how else at the waxing and waning of the moon, and the approach and withdrawal of the sun, do we behold such a change and reversal in earthly things? But are the plants and our bodies so bound up in the whole, and have sympathy with it, and are our spirits not much more so? And our souls being thus bound up and in touch with God, seeing, indeed, that they are portions and fragments of Him, shall not every movement of them, inasmuch as it is something inward and akin to God, be perceived by Him? But you are able to meditate upon the divine government, and upon all divine and all human affairs, and to be affected at the same time in the senses and in the intellect by ten thousand things, and at the same time to assent to some and dissent to others, or suspend your judgment; and you preserve in your mind so many impressions195 of so many and various things, and being affected by them, you strike upon ideas similar to earlier impressions, and you retain many different arts, and memories of ten thousand things; and shall not God have the power to overlook all things, and be present with all, and have a certain communication with all? But is the sun able to illuminate so great a part of the All, and to leave so little without light,—that part, namely, which is filled with the shadow of the earth—and shall He who made the sun, and guideth it in its sphere—a small part of Him beside the Whole—shall He not be capable of perceiving all things?

For how else do plants, as if following God's command, bloom in their proper time when He tells them to? They grow when He tells them to grow, and they produce fruit when He commands it, ripening when He instructs them to ripen. Then, they drop their fruit when He tells them to let it go and shed their leaves when He bids them to do so. And how else, at His command, do they fold up and stay still and at rest? How else, with the changing phases of the moon and the movement of the sun, do we see such shifts and reversals in the world around us? But are the plants and our bodies so interconnected, sharing a bond with the whole, and are our souls not even more so? Our souls, being intertwined and connected with God, truly pieces of Him, shouldn't every movement within them, being something internal and related to God, be noticed by Him? But you can contemplate divine authority, all divine matters, and human affairs, being influenced at once in both your senses and intellect by countless things, while simultaneously agreeing with some and disagreeing with others, or holding your judgment back; and you keep so many impressions of various experiences in your mind, and as you are influenced by them, you hit upon ideas similar to past impressions, maintaining numerous different skills and memories of countless things. Shouldn't God have the ability to see everything, to be present with all, and to communicate with all? If the sun can shine on such a vast part of everything and leave so little in darkness—just that part filled with the earth's shadow—then shouldn't He who created the sun and guides it in its path—a mere small part of Him in relation to the Whole—be able to perceive everything?

4. But I, saith the man, cannot take heed of all these things at once. And who said you could do this? that you had equal powers with God? But, nevertheless, He hath placed at every man’s side a Guardian, the Genius of each man,2 who is charged to watch over him, a Genius that cannot sleep, nor be deceived. To what greater and more watchful guardian could He have committed us? So, when ye have shut the doors, and made darkness in the house, remember never to say that ye are alone; for ye are not alone, but God is there, and your Genius is there; and what need have these of light to mark what ye are doing? To this God it were fitting also that ye should swear an oath, as soldiers do to Cæsar. But those indeed who receive pay swear to prefer the196 safety of Cæsar before all things; but ye, receiving so many and great things, will ye not swear? or swearing, will ye not abide by it? And what shall ye swear? Never to disobey, never to accuse, never to blame aught that He hath given, never unwillingly to do or suffer any necessary thing. Is this oath like unto that other? The soldiers swear to esteem no other man before Cæsar; ye to esteem yourselves above all.

4. But I, says the man, can’t pay attention to all these things at once. And who said you could do that? That you had the same abilities as God? But still, He has placed a Guardian by each person’s side, the Genius of each individual,2 who is tasked with watching over him, a Genius that cannot sleep or be fooled. What greater and more watchful guardian could He have entrusted us to? So, when you’ve shut the doors and created darkness in the house, remember never to say that you are alone; for you are not alone, God is there, and your Genius is there; and what need do they have for light to see what you are doing? To this God, it would also be fitting that you swear an oath, like soldiers do to Caesar. But those who receive pay swear to prioritize Caesar's safety above everything; but you, receiving so many great things, will you not swear? Or if you swear, will you not keep your word? And what will you swear? Never to disobey, never to accuse, never to blame anything that He has given, never to unwillingly do or endure anything necessary. Is this oath like the other? The soldiers swear to regard no one else above Caesar; you are to regard yourselves above all.


CHAPTER III.

of fate.

1. Marvel not if the other animals have all things that are needful for the body without preparation, not alone food and drink, but sleeping places also, and they have no need of shoes, nor bedding, nor raiment, while all these things must needs be added to us. For these creatures exist not for themselves, but for service; it were not expedient that they had been made with need of such additions. For, look you, what a task it were for us to take thought, not for ourselves alone, but also for the sheep and the asses, how they should be clad, how shod, how they should eat, how they should drink! But as soldiers are ready for their commands, shod, and clothed, and accoutred, and it would be a grievous thing if197 each captain of a thousand must go round and shoe or clothe his thousand; so also hath Nature formed the animals that are made for service, ready equipped, and needing no further care. And thus one little child with a rod will drive the sheep.

1. Marvel not if the other animals have everything they need for their bodies without any preparation—it's not just food and drink, but also places to sleep. They don’t need shoes, bedding, or clothing, while all these things must be added for us. These creatures were not made for themselves, but to serve; it wouldn’t make sense for them to require such additions. Imagine how overwhelming it would be for us to worry not only about ourselves but also about how to clothe and shoe the sheep and donkeys, and how they should eat and drink! But just as soldiers are ready for orders, properly shod, clothed, and equipped, it would be quite a burden if each captain of a thousand had to go around and fit shoes or clothes for his thousand. Nature has arranged it so that animals made for service are already equipped and don’t need additional care. Thus, one little child with a rod can easily drive the sheep.

2. But now we, neglecting to be grateful, for that we need not attend to the animals equally with ourselves, do accuse God for our own lack. And yet, by Zeus and all the Gods, there is no one thing in the frame of Nature but would give, at least to a reverent and grateful spirit, enough for the perceiving of the Providence of God. And to speak of no great things now, consider this alone, how milk is produced from grass, and cheese from milk, and wool from skins. Who is he that hath made these things or planned them? No one, sayest thou? O monstrous impudence and dullness!

2. But now we, failing to be thankful, for the fact that we don’t have to care for animals like we do for ourselves, blame God for our own shortcomings. And yet, by Zeus and all the Gods, there isn’t a single thing in nature that wouldn’t provide, at least to a respectful and grateful spirit, enough to recognize the Providence of God. And to not focus on anything too grand right now, just think about this: how milk comes from grass, cheese from milk, and wool from skins. Who created these things or designed them? No one, you say? Oh, what monstrous arrogance and ignorance!

3. Well, then, let the large works of Nature pass, and let us look only at her by-works. Is there aught more useless than the hairs on the chin? What then? hath she not made such use even of these, that nothing could be comelier? hath she not by them distinguished male from female? Doth not the nature of every man cry aloud even at a distance, I am a man, thus shalt thou approach me, thus speak to me, look for nothing else; behold the tokens! And again in women, as Nature hath mingled something of softness in the voice, so she hath taken198 away the hairs. Nay, will you say? but every creature should have been left undistinguished, and each of us should proclaim, “I am a man?” But how beautiful is not the token, and becoming, and reverend? how much more beautiful than the cock’s comb? how much more becoming than the lion’s mane? Wherefore it behooveth us to preserve God’s tokens, nor to fling them away, nor to confound, as far as in us lies, the things that distinguish the sexes.

3. Well, let’s move past the grand works of Nature and focus on her smaller creations. Is there anything more pointless than the hairs on a chin? But what does it matter? Hasn’t she found a way to make even these things beautiful? Hasn’t she used them to differentiate between male and female? Doesn’t every man’s nature announce from afar, I am a man, this is how you should approach me, this is how you should speak to me, expect nothing more; look for the signs! And in women, just as Nature has mixed a bit of softness into their voices, she has also removed the hair. No, will you argue? But every creature should have been left without distinction, and each of us should declare, “I am a man?” But how beautiful are these signs, how fitting, and how full of respect! They are so much more attractive than a rooster's comb and more fitting than a lion’s mane. Therefore, we should honor God’s signs, not discard them, and do everything we can to keep the things that differentiate the sexes clear.

4. Are these the only works of Providence in us?—but what may suffice to rightly praise and tell them? For had we understanding thereof, would any other thing better beseem us, either in company or alone, than to hymn the Divine Being, and laud Him and rehearse His gracious deeds? Should we not, as we dig or plow or eat, sing this hymn to God, Great is God, who hath given us such instruments whereby we shall till the earth; great is God, who hath given us hands, and swallowing, and the belly; who maketh us to grow without our knowledge, and to breathe while we sleep. These things it were fitting that every man should sing, and to chant the greatest and divinest hymns for this, that He hath given us the power to observe and consider His works and a Way wherein to walk.1 What then? since the most of you have become blind, should there not be one to fill this place, and in the name of all to sing this199 hymn to God? For what else can I do, an old man and lame, than sing hymns to God? If I were a nightingale I would do after the nature of a nightingale; if a swan, after that of a swan. But now I am a reasoning creature, and it behooves me to sing the praise of God: this is my task, and this I do, nor, as long as it is granted me, will I ever abandon this post. And you, too, I summon to join me in the same song.

4. Are these the only works of Providence in us?—but what would be enough to truly praise and share them? If we understood this, would there be anything more appropriate for us, whether in company or alone, than to sing the praises of the Divine Being, to honor Him, and to recount His gracious deeds? Shouldn't we, while we dig, plow, or eat, sing this hymn to God, Great is God, who has given us the tools to cultivate the earth; great is God, who has given us hands, the ability to eat, and the stomach; who makes us grow without our awareness, and allows us to breathe while we sleep? It is fitting for everyone to sing these things and to chant the greatest and holiest hymns for the fact that He has given us the ability to observe and reflect on His works and a path to follow.1 So, what then? Since most of you have become blind, should there not be someone to take this place and, on behalf of all, sing this199 hymn to God? What else can I do, an old man and lame, than sing hymns to God? If I were a nightingale, I would act like one; if I were a swan, I would behave like that. But now I am a reasoning being, and it is my duty to sing God's praises: this is my role, and this I do, and as long as I am able, I will never abandon this task. And you, too, I invite to join me in the same song.


CHAPTER IV.

God in humanity.

1. God is beneficial. But the Good is also beneficial. It is likely, then, that where the essence of God is, there also should be the essence of the Good. And what is the essence of God? Flesh? God forbid. A property in land? God forbid. Fame? God forbid. Mind, Intelligence, Right Reason? Even so. Here, then, once for all, seek the essence of the Good. For surely you will in no wise seek it in a plant? Nay. Or in any unreasoning creature? Nay. If, then, it is sought in a reasoning creature, wherefore continue to seek it anywhere else than in the difference between reasoning and unreasoning creatures?

1. God is good for us. But goodness is also good for us. So, it makes sense that where God is, goodness should be there too. And what is the essence of God? Flesh? Absolutely not. A piece of property? Absolutely not. Fame? Absolutely not. Mind, intelligence, right reasoning? Yes, definitely. So, once and for all, look for the essence of goodness. Surely, you won't look for it in a plant? No. Or in any creature that can't think? No. If you're looking for it in a thinking being, then why keep searching anywhere else but in the distinction between thinking and non-thinking beings?

2. The plants have not so much as the use of appearances, therefore we speak not200 of the Good in their regard. The Good, then, needs the power of using appearances. And this alone? Nay; for if so, say then that Good and Happiness and Unhappiness are with the lower animals too. But this you will not say, and you are right; for though they possessed the use of appearances in the highest degree, yet the observing and considering of this use they do not possess, and naturally so, for they exist to serve others, nor have any supreme object in themselves.1 For the ass was not made for any supreme object in himself? Nay, but he was made able to bear, because we had need of a back; and, by Zeus, we had need moreover that he should walk; wherefore he received also the power to use appearances, else had he not been able to walk. And thereupon the matter stopped. For had he also received the observing and considering of the use of appearances, it is clear that in reason he could no longer have been subject to us, nor have served those needs of ours, but he had been our equal and our like.

2. Plants don’t have any real use for appearances, so we don’t talk about the Good in relation to them. The Good, then, requires the ability to utilize appearances. But is that all? No; if that were the case, then Good, Happiness, and Unhappiness would apply to lower animals too. But you wouldn’t claim that, and you’re correct; because even though they use appearances to a great extent, they do not possess the ability to observe and reflect on that use, and rightly so, since they exist to serve others and don’t have a higher purpose of their own. The donkey wasn’t created for a higher purpose on its own, right? No, it was made to carry things because we needed a way to transport loads; and, by Zeus, we also needed it to walk; so it was given the ability to use appearances, otherwise it wouldn’t be able to walk. And that’s where the matter ends. If it were also given the ability to observe and reflect on the use of appearances, it’s clear that, in reason, it could no longer be subject to us or fulfill our needs, but would be our equal and like us.

3. For use is one thing, and observation and study is another. God had need of the other animals to use appearances, but of us to observe and study appearances. Wherefore it is enough for them to eat and drink, and rest and breed, and do whatever else each of them performs, but to us, to whom the faculty of observing and studying hath201 also been given, these things are not enough; but unless we act after a certain manner and ordinance, and conformably to the nature and constitution of man, we shall never attain the end of our being. For where the constitution is different, different there also is the task and the end. When, therefore, the constitution is one for use alone, then the use, of whatever kind it be, is enough; but where there is also observing and studying of the use, then, unless the due employment of this faculty be added, the end shall never be gained. What then? God hath constituted every other animal, one to be eaten, another to serve for tilling the land, another to yield cheese, another to some kindred use; for which things what need is there of the observing and studying of appearances, and the ability to make distinctions in them? But man he hath brought in to be a spectator of God and of His works, and not a spectator alone, but an interpreter of them. Wherefore it is shameful for a man to begin and to end where creatures do that are without Reason; but rather should he begin when they begin, and end where Nature ends in ourselves. But she ends in contemplation, in observing and studying, in a manner of life that is in harmony with Nature. See to it, then, that ye die not without having been spectators of these things.

3. Using something is one thing, but observing and studying it is another. God needed the other animals for their appearances, but for us, He intended for us to observe and study those appearances. So, it's enough for them to eat, drink, rest, reproduce, and do whatever else they do, but for us, who have also been given the ability to observe and study, these things aren’t enough; unless we act in a certain way and align with the nature and makeup of humans, we will never achieve the purpose of our existence. When the makeup is purely for use, then using it, in whatever form, is sufficient; but where there is also observing and studying of that use, if we don’t properly utilize this ability, the goal will never be reached. So, what does that mean? God has made every other animal for a specific purpose: one is for food, another for farming, one for producing milk, and others for similar uses; for these purposes, what need is there for observing and studying their appearances or the ability to differentiate between them? But He created man to be a witness to God and His works, not just a witness but an interpreter of them. Therefore, it’s disgraceful for a person to start and finish where non-rational creatures do; instead, they should begin when those creatures begin and end where Nature concludes in us. And Nature concludes in contemplation, in observing and studying, in a way of life that aligns with Nature. Make sure you don’t leave this world without having been a witness to these things.

4. Seek, then, the essence of the Good202 there, where if it be not, thou wilt not say that the Good is in any other thing.

4. So, look for the essence of the Good202 in that place, because if it's not there, you won't claim that the Good exists in anything else.

5. But what? are not those creatures also works of God? Surely; yet not supreme objects, yet not parts of the Gods. But thou art a supreme object, thou art a piece of God, thou hast in thee something that is a portion of Him. Why, then, art thou ignorant of thy high ancestry? Why knowest thou not whence thou camest? Wilt thou not remember, in thine eating, who it is that eats, and whom thou dost nourish? in cohabiting, who it is that cohabits? in converse, in exercise, in argument, knowest thou not that thou art nourishing a God, exercising a God? Unhappy man! thou bearest about with thee a God, and knowest it not! Thinkest thou I speak of some God of gold and silver, and external to thee? Nay, but in thyself thou dost bear Him, and seest not that thou defilest Him with thine impure thoughts and filthy deeds. In the presence even of an image of God thou hadst not dared to do one of those things which thou dost. But in the presence of God Himself within thee, who seeth and heareth all things, thou art not ashamed of the things thou dost both desire and do, O thou unwitting of thine own nature, and subject to the wrath of God?

5. But what? Aren't those creatures also works of God? Surely; yet they aren't ultimate beings, nor are they parts of the Gods. But you are a supreme being, you are a piece of God; within you is something that is a part of Him. Why then are you unaware of your high lineage? Why don't you know where you came from? Won't you remember, when you eat, who is the one eating, and whom you are nourishing? When you are with someone, who is it that is together? In conversations, in exercise, in arguments, do you not realize that you are nurturing a God, exercising a God? Unfortunate person! You carry a God within you and don't even know it! Do you think I'm talking about some God made of gold and silver, separate from you? No, but within yourself, you carry Him, and you don't see that you are defiling Him with your impure thoughts and filthy deeds. In the presence of even a statue of God, you wouldn't dare do any of those things that you do. But in the presence of God Himself within you, who sees and hears everything, you aren't ashamed of the things you both desire and do, O you who are unaware of your own nature and subject to God's wrath?

6. Why, then, do we fear in sending forth a young man from the school into some of the business of life, lest he should203 do wrong in anything, and be luxurious or profligate, and lest a wrapping of rags degrade him, or fine raiment uplift him? Such a one knoweth not his own God, nor with whom he is setting out. But can we have patience with him, saying, Would that I had you with me!2 And hast thou not God with thee there? or having Him, dost thou seek for any other? or will He speak other things to thee than even these?

6. So why do we worry about sending a young man out of school into the realities of life, fearing he might make mistakes, become indulgent or reckless, or that wearing rags might humble him, while nice clothes might elevate him? Someone like that doesn’t really know his own God or who he’s starting this journey with. But can we be patient with him, thinking, I wish I had you with me!2 And don’t you have God with you there? Or if you do, are you looking for something else? Will He tell you anything different than what you already know?

7. But wert thou a statue of Pheidias, an Athena or Zeus, then wert thou mindful both of thyself and of the artist; and if thou hadst any consciousness, thou wouldst strive to do nothing unworthy of thy maker nor of thyself, nor ever to appear in any unseemly guise. But now that Zeus hath made thee, thou carest therefore nothing what kind of creature thou showest thyself for? And yet, is the one Artist like the other artist, or the one work like the other work? And what kind of work is that which hath in itself the faculties that were manifest in the making of it? Do not artists work in stone or brass or gold or ivory? and the Athena of Pheidias, when she hath once stretched out her hand and received upon it the figure of Victory, standeth thus for all time? But the works of God have motion and breathing, and the use of appearances and the judgment of them. Wilt thou dishonor such a Maker, whose work thou art? Nay, for not only did He make thee, but to thee204 alone did He trust and commit thyself. Wilt thou not remember this too, or wilt thou dishonor thy charge? But if God had committed some orphan child to thee, wouldst thou have neglected it? Now He hath given thee to thyself, and saith, I had none more worthy of trust than thee; keep this man such as he was made by nature—reverent, faithful, high, unterrified, unshaken of passions, untroubled. And thou wilt not.

7. But if you were a statue created by Pheidias, like Athena or Zeus, you would be aware of both yourself and the artist. If you had any consciousness, you would strive to do nothing unworthy of your maker or yourself, and you wouldn't want to appear in any inappropriate way. But now that Zeus has formed you, do you not care what kind of being you present yourself as? And yet, is one artist really like another, or is one work like another work? What kind of creation possesses the qualities that were evident in its making? Don't artists work with stone or brass or gold or ivory? The Athena of Pheidias, once she has raised her hand and received the figure of Victory, stands for all time. But the works of God have movement and breath, and the ability to perceive and judge appearances. Will you dishonor such a Maker, whose work you are? No, for not only did He create you, but He entrusted you with yourself. Will you not remember this, or will you dishonor your responsibility? If God had entrusted you with some orphaned child, would you have ignored it? Now He has given you yourself, saying, *I have no one more worthy of trust than you; keep this man as he was made by nature—reverent, faithful, noble, fearless, steady in his emotions, and untroubled.* And yet, you will not.

8. But they may say: Whence doth this fellow bring us that eye of scorn and solemn looks? I have it not yet as I should, For I am yet unbold in those things which I have learned and assented to; I yet fear my weakness. But let me be bold in them, and then ye shall see such a look, such a guise, as behooveth me to wear. Then shall I show you the statue when it is perfected and polished. What look ye for?—an eye of scorn? God forbid! For doth the Zeus in Olympia look scornfully?—nay, but his glance is steadfast, as becometh him who will say,

8. But they might ask: Where does this guy get that look of scorn and those serious expressions? I don't have it figured out yet, because I'm still hesitant about the things I've learned and agreed to; I still fear my weakness. But if I can be confident in them, then you’ll see a look, a demeanor, that suits me. Then I’ll show you the statue when it’s finished and polished. What do you expect?—a look of scorn? God forbid! Does Zeus in Olympia look scornful?—no, his gaze is steady, fitting for one who will say,

“None trusts in vain my irrevocable word.”—Il. i. 526.

“None trusts in vain my unchangeable word.”—Il. i. 526.

Such will I show myself to you—faithful, reverent, generous, untroubled. Not also, then, deathless, ageless, deceaseless? Nay, but dying as God, sickening as a God. These I have, these I can; but other things I neither have nor can. I will show you205 the thews of a philosopher. And what are these? A pursuit that never fails, an avoidance that never miscarries, seemly desire, studious resolve, cautious assent.3 These shall ye see.

This is how I'll present myself to you—loyal, respectful, generous, and calm. Am I not also, then, immortal, timeless, never-ending? No, but I die like a God, suffering like a God. These qualities I possess, these I can offer; but there are others I neither have nor can provide. I will demonstrate the qualities of a philosopher. And what are those? A pursuit that never fails, a caution that always succeeds, appropriate desires, focused determination, careful agreement.3 You shall see these.


CHAPTER V.

of fortune-telling.1

1. When thou goest to inquire of an oracle, remember that what the event will be thou knowest not, for this is the thing thou art come to learn from the seer; but of what nature it is (if haply thou art a philosopher), thou knewest already in coming. For if it be any of those things that are not in our own power, it follows of necessity that it can be neither good nor evil.

1. When you go to ask an oracle, remember that you don't know what the outcome will be; that's what you're there to learn from the seer. However, if you're a philosopher, you already understand the nature of the situation by the time you arrive. If it's something outside of our control, then it can't be classified as good or evil.

2. Bring, therefore, to the seer neither pursuit nor avoidance, nor go before him with trembling, but well knowing that all events are indifferent and nothing to thee. For whatever it may be, it shall lie with thee to use it nobly; and this no man can prevent. Go, then, with a good courage to the Gods as to counselors; and for the rest, when anything hath been counseled thee, remember of whom thou hast taken counsel, and whom thou wilt be slighting if thou art not obedient.

2. So, take to the seer neither running after what you want nor avoiding what you fear, and don’t approach him in fear, but understand that all things are neutral and mean nothing to you. Whatever happens, it’s up to you to handle it with dignity; and no one can take that away from you. So, go with confidence to the Gods as if they’re your advisors; and when you’ve received guidance, remember who you asked for advice and whom you would be disrespecting if you don’t follow it.

3. Therefore, as Socrates would have it,206 go to the oracle for those matters only where thy whole inquiry bendeth solely towards the event, and where there are no means either from reason or any other art for knowing beforehand what is to happen. Thus, when it may be needful to share some peril with thy friend or thy country, inquire of no oracle whether thou shouldst do the thing. For if the seer should declare that the sacrifices are inauspicious, this signifies clearly either death, or the loss of some limb, or banishment; yet doth Reason decree that even so thou must stand by thy friend, and share thy country’s danger.

3. So, as Socrates would say,206 go to the oracle only for matters where your entire inquiry focuses solely on the outcome, and where there’s no way, either through reason or any other skill, of knowing in advance what will happen. Therefore, if you need to face some danger alongside your friend or your country, don’t ask the oracle whether you should go through with it. Because if the seer says the sacrifices aren’t favorable, it clearly means either death, the loss of a limb, or exile; yet Reason insists that even so, you must support your friend and face your country’s risks.

4. Mark, therefore, that greater seer, the Pythian, who cast out of his temple one that, when his friend was being murdered, did not help him.2

4. So, notice the great seer, the Pythian, who expelled from his temple someone who didn't help his friend when he was being murdered.2

End of Book 4


BOOK V.


CHAPTER I.

the behavior of a philosopher.

1. Ordain for thyself forthwith a certain form and type of conduct, which thou shalt maintain both alone and, when it may chance, among men.

1. Set for yourself right away a specific way of behaving that you will keep both on your own and, when the occasion arises, in the company of others.

2. And for the most part keep silence, or speak only what is necessary, and in few words. But when occasion may call thee to speak, then speak, but sparingly, and not about any subject at hap-hazard, nor about gladiators, nor horse races, nor athletes, nor things to eat and drink, which are talked of everywhere; but, above all, not about men, as blaming or praising or comparing them.

2. For the most part, stay quiet or only say what’s necessary and keep it brief. But when the situation calls for you to speak, do so carefully, and avoid random topics like gladiators, horse races, athletes, or food and drinks, which everyone discusses; and most importantly, don’t talk about people, whether you're criticizing, praising, or comparing them.

If, then, thou art able, let thy discourse draw that of the company towards what is seemly and good. But if thou find thyself apart among men of another sort, keep silence.

If you can, let your conversation guide the group towards what is proper and good. But if you find yourself among people who are different, stay silent.

3. Laugh not much, nor at many things, nor unrestrainedly.

3. Don't laugh too much, not at a lot of things, and not excessively.

4. Refuse altogether, if thou canst, to take an oath; if thou canst not, then as the circumstances allow.1

4. Refuse completely, if you can, to take an oath; if you can't, then do so as the situation allows.1

2085. Shun banquets given by strangers and by the vulgar. But if any occasion bring thee to them, give strictest heed, lest thou fall unawares into the ways of the vulgar. For know that if thy companion be corrupt, he who hath conversation with him must needs be corrupted also, even if himself should chance to be pure.

2085. Avoid parties hosted by strangers and by people with bad manners. But if you find yourself at one of these gatherings, be very careful not to let their behavior influence you. Understand that if your companion is morally flawed, anyone who interacts with him is likely to be affected as well, even if they themselves are innocent.

6. Hath any of you the art of a lute-player when he takes the lute in his hand, so as at once when he hath touched the strings to know which are out of tune, and then to tune the instrument?—such a gift as Socrates had, who in every company could lead those that were with him to his own topic? Whence should you have it? but ye must needs be carried about hither and thither by the vulgar. And wherefore, then, are they stronger than ye? For that they speak their sorry stuff from belief; but ye, your fine talk from the lips out. Wherefore it is flat and dead; and sickening it is to hear your exhortations and this wretched virtue of yours, which is prated of in every quarter. And thus the vulgar conquer you. For everywhere belief is mighty, belief is invincible. Until then the right opinions are hardened in you; and until ye shall have gained a certain strength for your safety, I counsel you to mingle cautiously with the vulgar, else every day, like wax in the sun, shall whatever hath been written in you in the school be melted away.209

6. Do any of you have the skill of a lute player who, when he picks up the lute, can immediately tell which strings are out of tune and then adjust them?—such a talent as Socrates had, who could steer any conversation to his topic? Where would you get it? You must be dragged around by the masses. So why are they stronger than you? Because they speak their nonsense from true belief, while you, with your fancy talk, only speak from the surface. That’s why it falls flat and sounds lifeless; it’s exhausting to hear your motivational speeches and this pathetic virtue of yours that’s talked about everywhere. And that’s how the masses defeat you. For belief is powerful and unstoppable. Until your right opinions are solidified within you, and until you find a certain strength for your own protection, I advise you to be careful in your interactions with the masses; otherwise, like wax in the sun, everything you learned in school will just melt away.209

7. In things that concern the body accept only so far as the bare need—as in food, drink, clothing, habitation, servants. But all that makes for glory or luxury thou must utterly proscribe.

7. In matters related to the body, only accept what is absolutely necessary—like food, drink, clothing, shelter, and servants. However, you should completely avoid anything that promotes fame or luxury.

8. Concerning intercourse of the sexes, it is right to be pure before marriage, to the best of thy power. But, using it, let a man have to do only with what is lawful. Yet be not grievous to those who use such pleasures, nor censorious; nor be often putting thyself forward as not using them.

8. About relationships between men and women, it's important to be pure before marriage, as much as you can. But when you do engage, a man should only partake in what is lawful. However, don't judge those who enjoy such pleasures, and don't be overly critical; also, don't constantly make a point of showing that you don't partake in them.

9. If one shall bear thee word that such a one hath spoken evil of thee, then do not defend thyself against his accusations, but make answer: He little knew my other vices, or he had not mentioned only these.

9. If someone tells you that someone else has spoken badly about you, then don’t defend yourself against their accusations, but respond: He didn't know my other flaws, or he wouldn't have mentioned just these.

10. There is no necessity to go often to the arena, but if occasion should take thee there, do not appear ardent on any man’s side but thine own; that is to say, choose that only to happen which does happen, and that the conqueror may be simply he who wins; for so shalt thou not be thwarted. But from shouting and laughing at this or that, or violent gesticulation, thou must utterly abstain. And when thou art gone away, converse little on the things that have passed, so far as they make not for thine own correction. For from that it would appear that admiration of the spectacle had overcome thee.

10. You don't need to go to the arena often, but if you do end up there, don't show enthusiasm for anyone but yourself. In other words, accept whatever happens as it happens, and let the winner be simply whoever wins; this way, you won't be disappointed. Avoid shouting, laughing, or making wild gestures. And when you leave, try not to talk much about what happened, unless it helps you improve. Otherwise, it might seem like you were overly impressed by the show.

11. Go not freely nor indiscriminately to210 recitations.2 But if thou go, then preserve (yet without being grievous to others) thy gravity and calmness.

11. Don't go to recitations casually or without thinking.210 If you do go, make sure to keep your seriousness and composure, but be mindful not to burden others.

12. When thou art about to meet any one, especially one of those that are thought high in rank, set before thy mind what Socrates or Zeno had done in such a case. And so thou wilt not fail to deal as it behooves thee with the occasion.

12. When you're about to meet someone, especially someone who is considered important, think about what Socrates or Zeno would have done in that situation. That way, you won't miss the chance to handle things as you should.

13. When thou goest to any of those that are great in power, set before thy mind the case that thou wilt not find him at home, that thou wilt be shut out, that the doors may be slammed in thy face, that he will take no notice of thee. And if even with these things it behooves thee to go, then go, and bear all that happens; and never say to thyself—It was not worth this. For that is the part of the foolish, and of those that are offended at outward things.

13. When you go to see someone in power, keep in mind that you might not find them home, that you could be turned away, that the doors may be shut in your face, or that they may ignore you. And even if these are the possibilities, if you feel you must go, then go and accept whatever happens; and never tell yourself—It was not worth this. Because that is the attitude of the foolish and those who are bothered by external situations.

14. In company, be it far from thee to dwell much and over-measure on thine own deeds and dangers. For to dwell on thine own dangers is pleasant indeed to thee, but not equally pleasant for others is it to hear of the things that have chanced to thee.

14. When you're with others, avoid focusing too much on your own actions and troubles. It might be enjoyable for you to think about your own challenges, but it's not as enjoyable for others to hear about everything that's happened to you.

15. Be it far from thee to move laughter. For that habit is a slippery descent into vulgarity;3 and it is always enough to relax thy neighbors’ respect for thee.

15. It’s best not to provoke laughter. That tendency can lead to a slippery slope into being unrefined;3 and it will always be enough to diminish your neighbors’ respect for you.

16. And it is dangerous to approach to vicious conversation. Therefore, when anything of the kind may arise, rebuke, if there211 is opportunity, him who approaches thereto. But if not, then at least by silence and blushing and grave looks, let it be plain that his talk is disagreeable to thee.

16. And it's risky to get involved in harmful conversations. So, whenever that kind of thing comes up, if you can, call out the person who's bringing it up. But if you can't, then at least show that their words bother you by staying silent, blushing, and looking serious.


CHAPTER II

about habits.

1. Every skill and faculty is maintained and increased by the corresponding acts; as, the faculty of walking by walking, of running by running. If you will read aloud well, then do it constantly; if you will write, then write. But when you have not read aloud for thirty days together, but done something else, you shall see the result. Thus, if you have lain down for ten days, then rise up and endeavor to walk a good distance, and you shall see how your legs are enfeebled. In general, then, if you would make yourself skilled in anything, then do it; and if you would refrain from anything, then do it not, but use yourself to do rather some other thing instead of it.

1. Every skill and ability is maintained and improved through practice; for example, you improve your ability to walk by walking and your ability to run by running. If you want to read aloud well, do it regularly; if you want to write, then write. But if you haven't read aloud for thirty days and have done something else instead, you'll notice the difference. Likewise, if you've been lying down for ten days, try to get up and walk a good distance, and you'll feel how weak your legs have become. So, if you want to get better at something, just do it; and if you want to avoid something, don't do it, but instead focus on something else.

2. And thus it is in spiritual things also. When thou art wrathful, know that not this single evil hath happened to thee, but that thou hast increased the aptness to it, and, as it were, poured oil upon the fire. When thou art overcome in passion, think not that this defeat is all; but thou hast nourished212 thine incontinence, and increased it. For it is impossible but that aptitudes and faculties should spring up where they were not before, or spread and grow mightier, by the corresponding acts. And thus, surely, do also, as the philosopher says, the infirmities of the soul grow up. For when thou hast once been covetous of money, if Reason, which leadeth to a sense of the vice, be called to aid, then both the desire is set at rest, and our ruling faculty is re-established, as it was in the beginning. But if thou bring no remedy to aid, then shall the soul return no more to the first estate; but when next excited by the corresponding appearance, shall be kindled to desire even more quickly than before. And when this is continually happening, the soul becomes callous in the end, and through its infirmity the love of money is strengthened. For he that hath had a fever, when the illness hath left him, is not what he was before his fever, unless he have been entirely healed. And somewhat on this wise also it happens in the affection of the soul: certain traces and scars are left in it, the which if a man do not wholly eradicate, when he hath been again scoured on the same place, it shall make no longer scars, but sores.

2. And so it is with spiritual matters too. When you feel angry, remember that this isn’t just a single bad thing that’s happened to you; you’ve also intensified your tendency toward it and, in a way, added fuel to the fire. When you are overwhelmed by passion, don’t think that this defeat is everything; you’ve actually fed your lack of self-control and made it worse. It’s impossible for new habits and abilities not to arise where they didn’t exist before or to grow stronger through our actions. And in the same way, as the philosopher says, the weaknesses of the soul also develop. For once you’ve become greedy for money, if Reason, which brings awareness of the vice, is called to help, then both the desire subsides, and our rational mind is restored to its original state. But if you don’t seek help, your soul won’t return to its former state; instead, when tempted again by a similar trigger, it will ignite desires even quicker than before. When this happens repeatedly, the soul becomes hardened over time, and through its weakness, the love of money becomes stronger. For someone who has had a fever, once the illness is gone, they aren’t the same as they were before unless they have fully healed. In a similar way, the same thing happens with the soul’s affections: certain marks and scars remain in it, and if a person doesn’t completely remove them, when they are again affected in the same way, they will no longer produce scars but rather wounds.

3. Wouldst thou, then, be no longer of a wrathful temper? Then do not nourish the aptness to it, give it nothing that will increase it, be tranquil from the outset, and number213 the days when thou hast not been wrathful. I have not been wrathful now for one, nor for two, nor for three days; but if thou have saved thirty days, then sacrifice to God. For the aptness is at first enfeebled, and then destroyed. To-day I was not vexed, nor to-morrow, nor for two or three months together; but I was heedful when anything happened to move me thus. Know that thou art in good case. To-day, when I saw a fair woman, I did not say to myself, Would that one could possess her; nor, Happy is her husband, for he who saith this saith also, Happy is her paramour; nor do I picture to my mind what should follow. But I stroke my head, and say, Well done, Epictetus! you have solved a fine sophism, finer by far than the master sophism. But if she were also willing and consenting, and sent to me, and if she also laid hold of me, and drew near to me, and I should yet restrain myself and conquer, this were indeed then a sophism above the Liar, above the Quiescent. Verily, for this a man’s spirit may rightly swell, and not for propounding the master sophism.1

3. So, would you no longer have a bad temper? Then don’t feed it, don’t give it anything that will make it stronger, stay calm from the start, and count the days when you haven’t been angry. I haven’t been angry for one day, or two, or three; but if you can go without being angry for thirty days, then give thanks to God. Because at first, anger weakens, and then it disappears. Today I wasn’t upset, nor tomorrow, nor for two or three months straight; but I was careful when something happened that might annoy me. Know that you’re doing well. Today, when I saw an attractive woman, I didn’t think, I wish I could have her; nor did I think, Her husband is lucky, because anyone who thinks this also thinks, Her lover is lucky; and I don’t imagine what might happen next. Instead, I pat myself on the back and say, Good job, Epictetus! You’ve figured out a great puzzle, way better than the main puzzle. But if she were also interested, and reached out to me, and if she came close to me, and I still managed to hold back and resist, that would be a true challenge, even more than the big puzzle. Truly, for this, a person’s spirit can justifiably rise, not just for figuring out the main puzzle.1

4. How, then, may this come to pass? Resolve at last to seek thine own commendation, to appear fair in the eyes of God; desire to become pure with thine own pure self, and with God. Then when thou shalt fall in with any appearance such as we have spoken of, what saith Plato? Go to the puri214fying sacrifices, go and pray in the temples of the protecting Gods.2 It shall even suffice if thou seek the company of good and wise men, and try thyself by one of them, whether he be one of the living or of the dead.

4. So, how can this happen? Finally decide to seek your own approval, to seem good in the eyes of God; want to be pure with your own pure self, and with God. Then when you encounter any situation like the one we've discussed, what does Plato say? Go to the purifying sacrifices, go and pray in the temples of the protecting Gods.2 It will be enough if you surround yourself with good and wise people, and test yourself against one of them, whether they are alive or dead.

5. By opposing these remedies thou shalt conquer the appearance, nor be led captive by it. But at the outset, be not swept away by the vehemence of it; but say, Await me a little, thou appearance; let me see what thou art, and with what thou hast to do; let me approve thee. And then permit it not to lead thee forward, and to picture to thee what should follow, else it shall take possession of thee, and carry thee whithersoever it will. But rather bring in against it some other fair and noble appearance, and therewithal cast out this vile one. And if thou use to exercise thyself in this way, thou shalt see what shoulders and nerves and sinews thou wilt have! But now we have only wordiness, and nothing more.

5. By resisting these temptations, you'll overcome their hold and not be trapped by them. But at first, don't get overwhelmed by their intensity; instead, say, Wait a moment, temptation; let me see what you are and what you involve; let me evaluate you. Then don’t let it pull you forward and make you imagine what comes next, or it will take control of you and lead you wherever it wants. Instead, counter it with a more positive and worthy thought, and push aside this negative one. If you practice this approach, you'll discover your strength and resilience! But right now, we’re just stuck in empty talk, and nothing more.

6. This is the true athlete,3 he who exerciseth himself against such appearances. Hold, unhappy man! be not swept away. Great is the contest, divine the task, for kingship, for freedom, for prosperity, for tranquillity. Be mindful of God, call Him to be thy helper and defender, as men at sea call upon the Dioscuri in a storm.4 For what greater tempest is there than that which proceedeth from appearances, that215 mightily overcome and expel the Reason? Yea, a storm itself, what is it but an appearance? For, take away only the dread of death, and bring as many thunderings and lightnings as thou wilt, and thou shalt see what fair weather and calm there will be in the ruling faculty. But if having been once defeated, thou shalt say, The next time I will conquer; and then the same thing over again, be sure that in the end thou wilt be brought to such a sorry and feeble state that henceforth thou wilt not so much as know that thou art sinning; but thou wilt begin to make excuses for the thing, and then confirm that saying of Hesiod to be true:—

6. This is the true athlete,3 the one who fights against such illusions. Hold on, troubled man! Don’t get swept away. The struggle is great, the task divine, for kingship, for freedom, for prosperity, for peace. Remember God, call on Him to be your helper and defender, like sailors at sea call on the Dioscuri during a storm.4 For what greater storm exists than that caused by appearances, which can powerfully overwhelm and drive out Reason? Yes, what is a storm itself but an illusion? Take away the fear of death, and no matter how much thunder and lightning you bring, you’ll see how calm and sunny it can be in your reasoning. But if after being defeated once you say, Next time I’ll win; and then you face the same situation again, be certain that eventually you’ll end up so weak and miserable that you won’t even realize you’re sinning; instead, you’ll start making excuses for it, confirming what Hesiod said to be true:—

"The procrastinator struggles with endless problems." Works and Days, 411.

7. What then? can a man make this resolve, and so stand up faultless? He cannot; but this much he can—to be ever straining towards faultlessness. For happy it were if, by never relaxing this industrious heed, we shall rid ourselves of at least a few of our faults. But now, when thou sayest, From to-morrow I shall be heedful, know that this is what thou art saying:—To-day I shall be shameless, importunate, abject; it shall be in others’ power to afflict me; to-day I shall be wrathful, envious. Lo, to how many vices dost thou give place! But if aught be well to-morrow, how much better to-day? if to-morrow suit, how much better to-day? Yea,216 and for this, too, that thou mayest have the power to-morrow, and not again put it off till the third day.

7. What then? Can a person make this commitment and be completely flawless? They can't; but they can strive to be better. It would be great if, by continuously paying attention, we could rid ourselves of at least a few of our flaws. But now, when you say, From tomorrow I’ll be careful, know that what you're really saying is: Today I’ll be careless, demanding, and miserable; others will have the power to bother me; today I’ll be angry and jealous. Look at how many faults you are allowing! But if things are good tomorrow, how much better would it be to make them better today? If tomorrow works out, how much better would today be? Yes,216 and also, so that you can act tomorrow, and not keep pushing it off to the third day.


CHAPTER III.

on debate.

1. What things a man must have learned in order to be able to reason well have been accurately defined by our philosophers; but in the fitting use of them we are wholly unexercised. Give any one of us whom ye please some ignorant man for a disputant, and he shall find no way to deal with him; but if, when he hath moved him a little, the man answer beside the purpose, he is no longer able to manage him, but either he will revile him, or mock him, and say, He is an ignorant fellow; nothing can be done with him.

1. What? things a person needs to learn to reason well have been clearly defined by our philosophers; but we are completely untrained in effectively using them. Give any one of us you choose an ignorant person to debate with, and they won't know how to handle it; but if, after getting the person to engage a little, they respond off-topic, we are no longer able to manage the conversation. Instead, we might insult them or make fun of them, saying, They are an ignorant person; there's nothing you can do with them.

2. But a guide, when he hath found one straying from the way, leads him into the proper road, and does not mock him or revile him, and then go away. And do thou show such a man the truth, and thou shalt see that he will follow it. But so long as thou dost not show it, mock him not, but be sensible rather of thine own incapacity.

2. But a guide, when he finds someone lost, leads them back to the right path and doesn't mock or insult them before walking away. And you should reveal the truth to such a person, and you’ll see that they will follow it. But as long as you don't show it, don't mock them; instead, be aware of your own limitations.

3. But what? this business of instruction is not very safe at present, and least of all217 in Rome; for he who pursues it will of course feel constrained not to do it in a corner, but he must go to some man of consular rank, it may be, or some rich man, and inquire of him: Sir, can you tell me to whom you have committed the care of your horses? Surely. Was it, then, to any chance-comer and one inexperienced about horses? By no means. Well, then, to whom are your gold and silver vessels and raiment entrusted? Neither are these committed to any chance person. And your body, have you already sought out one to whom to commit the care of it? How not? And that also one who is experienced in training and medicine? Assuredly. Whether, now, are these the best things you have, or do you possess aught that is better than all of them? What thing do you mean? That, by Zeus, which useth all these, and approveth each of them and taketh counsel? Is it the soul, then, that you mean? You have conceived me rightly; it is even this. Truly I hold that I possess in this something much better than everything else. Can you then declare to us in what manner you have taken thought for your soul? for it is not likely that a wise man like yourself, and one of repute in the State, would overlook the best think you possess, and use no diligence or design about it, but leave it neglected and perishing? Surely not. But do you provide for it yourself? and have218 you learned the way from another, or discovered it yourself?

3. But what? This whole teaching thing isn't very safe right now, especially not in Rome; because anyone who goes after it has to make sure they're not doing it in secret, but needs to approach someone of consular status or a wealthy person and ask: Sir, could you tell me who takes care of your horses? Of course. Was it just some random person who knows nothing about horses? No way. Well, who looks after your gold and silver dishes and clothing? Those aren't left to just anyone either. And what about your body? Have you found someone to take care of it yet? How could I not? And that someone who actually knows their stuff about training and medicine? Absolutely. Now, are these the most valuable things you own, or do you have anything better than them? What do you mean? That, by Zeus, which uses all these things, approves of them, and makes decisions about them? Are you talking about the soul? You've got me right; it is that. Honestly, I believe I have something much better than anything else in it. So can you tell us how you've thought about your soul? It seems unlikely that a wise person like you, who has a good reputation in the State, would ignore the most valuable thing you own and not put effort or thought into it, leaving it neglected and deteriorating? Definitely not. But do you take care of it yourself? And have you learned how from someone else, or figured it out on your own?

4. And then at last there is danger lest he say first, Good sir, what is this to you? who are you? and then, if you persist in troubling him, that he may lift up his hands and smite you. Once I too was an admirer of this method until I fell into these difficulties.

4. And then finally, there's a risk that he might say first, Good sir, what’s this to you? Who are you? and then, if you keep bothering him, he might raise his hands and hit you. I used to admire this approach until I got caught up in these problems.


CHAPTER IV.

that we should take our time in accepting pleasure.

1. When thou hast received the appearance of some pleasure, then, as in other things, guard thyself lest thou be carried away by it, but delay with thyself a little, and let the thing await thee for a while. Then bethink thyself of the two periods of time, one when thou shalt be enjoying the pleasure, the other, when, having enjoyed it, thou shalt afterwards repent of it and reproach thyself. And set on the other side how thou shalt rejoice and commend thyself if thou abstain.

1. When you experience a moment of pleasure, protect yourself from getting swept away by it. Take a moment to pause and let it sit for a while. Then consider the two times: one when you’re enjoying the pleasure and the other when, after enjoying it, you may regret it and feel disappointed in yourself. On the other hand, think about how happy and proud you’ll feel if you choose to abstain.

2. But if it seem reasonable to thee to do the thing, beware lest thou have been conquered by the flattery and the sweetness and the allurement of it. But set on the other side how much better were the consciousness of having won that victory.

2. But if it seems reasonable to you to do it, be careful not to let yourself be swayed by flattery, charm, and temptation. Instead, think about how much better it would feel to have achieved that victory.


CHAPTER V.

that we should be transparent in our interactions.

In doing aught which thou hast clearly discerned as right to do, seek never to avoid being seen in the doing of it, even though the multitude should be destined to form some wrong opinion concerning it. For if thou dost not right, avoid the deed itself. But if rightly, why fear those who will wrongly rebuke thee?

In doing anything that you've clearly recognized as the right thing to do, never try to hide while doing it, even if a lot of people are likely to have a misunderstanding about it. Because if you're not doing the right thing, then avoid the action altogether. But if you are doing the right thing, why worry about those who will wrongly criticize you?


CHAPTER VI.

That might be half true, but it could also be completely false.

As the sayings, It is day, It is night, are wholly justifiable if viewed disjunctively,1 but not if viewed together, even so at a feast, to pick out the largest portion for one’s self may be justifiable, if we look to the needs of the body alone, but is unjustifiable if viewed as it concerns the preservation of the proper community in the feast. Therefore, in eating with another person, remember not to look only at the value for the body of the things that are set before thee, but to220 preserve also the reverence due to the giver of the feast.

As the sayings, It is day, It is night, make perfect sense if considered separately,1 but don’t hold up if viewed together. Even at a feast, taking the biggest portion for yourself might seem reasonable if we only think about our physical needs, but it's unfair when we consider the importance of maintaining a sense of community during the meal. So, when eating with someone else, remember not to focus solely on the physical value of the food in front of you, but also to220 honor the generosity of the host.


CHAPTER VII.

that each person plays their own role.

1. If thou hast assumed a part beyond thy power to play, then thou hast both come to shame in that, and missed one thou couldst have well performed.

1. If you've taken on a role that's too much for you, then you've both embarrassed yourself with that and missed out on one that you could have done well.

2. And some one having inquired, How then, shall each of us perceive what character he befits? Whence, said Epictetus, doth the bull alone, when the lion approacheth, discover his own capacity, and advance to defend the whole herd? It is clear that with the capacity is ever joined the perception of the same, and thus, whoever of us may possess a like capacity will not be ignorant of it. But a bull is not made in a moment, nor is a man of generous spirit; but we must have preparation and winter-training,1 and not lightly rush upon things that do not concern us.

2. Someone asked, So how will each of us know what kind of character we have? Epictetus replied, how does the bull, when the lion comes near, recognize its own strength and step up to protect the whole herd? It's clear that awareness always comes with capability, so anyone who has similar strength will know it. But a bull isn't made in an instant, nor is a person of noble character; we need to prepare and train through the winter,1 and we shouldn't rush into things that don't concern us.


CHAPTER VIII.

we should take care of the soul just like we do the body.

In going about, you are careful not to step upon a nail or to twist your foot. Care thus221 also lest you injure your ruling faculty. And if we observe this in each thing we do, we shall the more safely undertake it.

In moving around, you make sure not to step on a nail or twist your ankle. Be careful not to hurt your judgment as well. If we pay attention to this in everything we do, we'll be able to take on tasks more safely.


CHAPTER IX.

the measure of profit.

The measure of gain for each man is the body, as the foot is for the shoe. Take your stand on this, and you shall preserve the measure. But if you transgress it, you must thenceforth be borne, as it were, down a steep. And so it is with the shoe, for if you will go beyond the measure of the foot, the shoe will be first gilded, then dyed purple, then embroidered. For that which hath once transgressed its measure hath no longer any limit.

The measure of success for each person is the body, just like the foot is for the shoe. Stand by this principle, and you'll maintain balance. But if you cross that line, you'll inevitably be pushed down a steep path. It's the same with the shoe; if you go beyond the foot’s size, the shoe will first be decorated in gold, then dyed purple, then embellished with embroidery. Once you exceed your limits, there are no boundaries left.


CHAPTER X.

the value of women.

From the age of fourteen years women are flattered and worshiped by men. Seeing thus that there is nothing else for them but to serve the pleasure of men, they begin to beautify themselves, and to place all their hopes in this. It were well, then, that they should perceive themselves to be prized for nothing else than modesty and decorum.

From the age of fourteen, women are flattered and admired by men. Realizing that their only role seems to be to cater to men's desires, they start to enhance their appearance and focus all their hopes on this. It would be better if they recognized that they are valued for qualities like modesty and decency alone.


CHAPTER XI.

a boring nature.

It betokens a dull nature to be greatly occupied in matters that concern the body, as to be much concerned about exercising one’s self, or eating, or drinking, or other bodily acts. But these things should be done by the way, and all attention be given to the mind.

It shows a lack of spirit to be overly focused on physical matters, like exercising, eating, drinking, or other bodily activities. These things should be done in passing, while most attention is directed toward the mind.


CHAPTER XII.

personal adornment.

1. A certain young man, a rhetorician, having come to Epictetus with his hair dressed in an unusually elaborate way, and his other attire much adorned, Tell me, said Epictetus, think you not that some dogs are beautiful, and some horses, and so of the other animals?

1. A certain young man, a speaker, came to Epictetus with his hair styled in an elaborate way, and his outfit heavily decorated. Epictetus said, "Tell me, don’t you think some dogs are beautiful, some horses, and so on with other animals?"

——“I do think it,” said he.

——“I really believe that,” he said.

And men too—are not some beautiful and some ill-favored?

And men too—aren't some good-looking and some not-so-good-looking?

——“How otherwise?”

"How else?"

Whether, then, do we call each of these223 beautiful for the same reasons and in the same kind, or each for something proper to itself? And you shall see the matter thus: Inasmuch as we observe a dog to be formed by nature for one end, and a horse for another, and, let us say, a nightingale for another, we may in general say, not unreasonably, that each of them is then beautiful when it is excellent according to its own nature; but since the nature of each is different, different also, it seems to me, is the manner of being beautiful in each. Is it not so?

Whether we call each of these223 beautiful for the same reasons and in the same way, or if each is beautiful for its own unique qualities? Here’s how we can think about it: Just as we see that a dog is naturally suited for one purpose, a horse for another, and a nightingale for yet another, we can reasonably say that each of them is beautiful when it excels according to its own nature. However, since the nature of each is different, the way they are beautiful is also different, it seems to me. Don’t you agree?

He acknowledged that it was.

He admitted that it was.

Therefore, that which maketh a dog beautiful maketh a horse ill-favored; and that which maketh a horse beautiful, a dog ill-favored; if, indeed, their natures are different?

Therefore, what makes a dog beautiful makes a horse look unattractive; and what makes a horse beautiful makes a dog look unattractive; if, in fact, their natures are different?

——“So it seems.”

"Looks that way."

And that which maketh a beautiful Pancratiast,1 the same maketh a wrestler not good, and a runner utterly laughable? And he who is beautiful for the Pentathlon is very bad for wrestling?

And what makes a beautiful Pancratiast,1 also makes a wrestler not good, and a runner completely ridiculous? And the person who looks good for the Pentathlon is really terrible at wrestling?

——“It is so,” he said.

“It is,” he said.

What is it, then, that makes a man beautiful? Is it not that which, in its kind, makes also a dog or a horse beautiful?

What is it that makes a man beautiful? Is it not that which, in its own way, makes a dog or a horse beautiful?

——“It is that,” he answered.

"It is that," he replied.

What, then, makes a dog beautiful? The presence of the virtue of a dog. And a horse? The presence of the virtue of a horse.224 And what, then, a man? Is it not also the presence of the virtue of a man? And, O youth, if thou wouldst be beautiful, do thou labor to perfect this, the virtue of a human being. But what is it? Look whom you praise when you praise any without affection—is it the righteous or the unrighteous?

What makes a dog beautiful? It's the presence of a dog's virtue. And a horse? It's the presence of a horse's virtue.224 And what about a man? Isn't it also the presence of a man's virtue? And, oh youth, if you want to be beautiful, strive to perfect this, the virtue of being human. But what is that? Consider who you admire when you praise someone without affection—is it the good or the bad?

——“The righteous.”

"The virtuous."

Is it the temperate or the profligate?

Is it the moderate person or the extravagant one?

——“The temperate.”

“The temperate zone.”

Is it the continent or the incontinent?

Is it the continent or the one who can't hold it?

——“The continent.”

“The continent.”

Then making yourself such a one as you praise, you will know that you are making yourself beautiful; but so long as you neglect these things, though you sought out every device to appear beautiful, you must of necessity be ugly.

Then by becoming the person you admire, you'll realize you're becoming beautiful; but as long as you ignore these things, even if you try every trick to look beautiful, you'll inevitably remain unattractive.

2. For thou art not flesh and hair, but a Will: if thou keep this beautiful, then wilt thou be beautiful. But so far I dare not tell thee that thou art ugly, for I think thou wilt more easily bear to hear anything else than this. But see what Socrates saith to Alcibiades, the most beautiful and blooming of men: Endeavor, then, to be beautiful; and what saith he? Curl thy locks, and pluck out the hairs of thy legs? God forbid. But Set thy Will in order, cast out evil doctrines.

2. For you are not just flesh and hair, but a Will: if you keep this beautiful, then you will be beautiful. But I’m not bold enough to say that you’re ugly, since I think you’ll find it easier to hear anything else than that. But look at what Socrates says to Alcibiades, the most beautiful and vibrant of men: So, strive to be beautiful; and what does he say? Style your hair, and pluck out the hairs on your legs? God forbid. But Put your Will in order, and get rid of bad beliefs.

——“And how then shall we deal with the body?”

——“So how are we going to handle the body?”

As nature made it. Another hath cared for this; commit it to Him.225

As nature intended. Someone else has taken care of this; trust it to Him.225

——“But what? Shall the body then be uncleansed?”

——“But what? Should the body then remain unclean?”

God forbid. But that which thou art and wast made by Nature, cleanse this; let a man be clean as a man, a woman as a woman, a child as a child.

God forbid. But what you are and were made by Nature, cleanse this; let a man be clean as a man, a woman as a woman, a child as a child.

3. For we ought not even by the aspect of the body to scare away the multitude from philosophy; but by his body, as in all other things, a philosopher should show himself cheerful, and free from troubles. Behold, friends, how I have nothing and need nothing; behold how I am homeless and landless, and an exile, if so it chance, and hearthless, and yet I live more free from troubles than all the lordly and the rich. But look on my body, too; ye see that it is not the worse for my hard life. But if one saith this to me, having the countenance and garb of a condemned criminal, what God shall persuade me to approach to philosophy which makes such men as this? God forbid! I would not, were it even to become a sage.

3. We shouldn’t even scare people away from philosophy with how we look; instead, a philosopher should always appear cheerful and untroubled, just like in every other aspect of life. Look, friends, I have nothing and need nothing; see how I am homeless and without land, an exile, if that happens to be the case, and without a home, and yet I live with fewer troubles than everyone noble and wealthy. But take a look at my body, too; you can see it hasn’t suffered from my hard life. But if someone says this to me while looking and dressing like a condemned criminal, what kind of God would convince me to get close to a philosophy that creates people like that? God forbid! I wouldn’t want that, even if it meant becoming wise.

4. I, indeed, by the Gods, had rather a young man in his first movement towards philosophy came to me with his hair curled than disheveled and foul. For a certain impression of the beautiful is to be seen in him, and an aim at what is becoming; and to the thing wherein it seemeth to him to lie, there he applies his art. Thenceforth it only needs to show him its true place, and to say, Young man, thou seekest the beautiful,226 and thou dost well. Know, then, that it flourishes there where thy Reason is; there seek it where are thy likes and dislikes, thy pursuits and avoidances, for this is what thou hast in thyself of choice and precious, but the body is by nature mud. Why dost thou spend thy labor upon it in vain? for that the body is naught, Time shall certainly teach thee, though it teach thee nothing else. But if one come to me foul and filthy, and a mustache down to the knees, what have I to say to him? with what image or likeness can I draw him on? For with what that is like unto Beauty hath he ever busied himself, so as I may set him on another course, and say, Not here is Beauty, but there? Will you have me tell him, Beauty consists not in being befouled, but in the Reason? For doth he even seek Beauty? hath he any impression of it in his mind? Go, and reason with a hog, that he shall not roll himself in the mud.

4. Honestly, I’d prefer a young man just starting on his philosophical journey to come to me with styled hair rather than looking messy and dirty. There's something beautiful about him, and he aims for what’s right; he focuses on what he thinks is good. From there, all I need to do is show him the right path and say, Young man, you’re looking for beauty,226 and that’s great. Keep in mind that it thrives where your Reason is; search for it among your likes and dislikes, your interests and things you avoid, because that’s what you hold dear within yourself, while the body is essentially just dirt. Why waste your efforts on it? Time will definitely teach you that the body is worthless, even if it teaches you nothing else. But if someone comes to me dirty and unkempt, with a mustache down to his knees, what can I possibly say to him? How can I inspire him with an image or idea? How has he ever engaged with anything resembling Beauty that I can redirect him and say, Beauty isn’t found here, but over there? Should I tell him, Beauty isn’t about being filthy, but about Reason? Does he even seek Beauty? Does he have any idea of what it is? It’s like trying to reason with a pig and telling it to stop rolling in the mud.

5. Behold a youth worthy of love—behold an old man worthy to love, and to be loved in return; to whom one may commit his sons, his daughters, to be taught; to whom young men may come, if it please you—that he may deliver lectures to them on a dunghill! God forbid. Every extravagance arises from something in human nature, but this is near to being one that is not human.

5. Look at a young person who deserves love—look at an older man who is deserving of love and who can give love back; someone to whom you can trust your sons and daughters to be educated; someone young men can approach, if you like—that he can give them talks while sitting in a pile of filth! God forbid. Every excess comes from something in human nature, but this one is almost beyond what is human.


CHAPTER XIII.

Why we should tolerate wrongdoing.

When some one may do you an injury, or speak ill of you, remember that he either does it or speaks it believing that it is right and meet for him to do so. It is not possible, then, that he can follow the thing that appears to you, but the thing that appears to him. Wherefore, if it appear evil to him, it is he that is injured, being deceived. For also if any one should take a true consequence to be false, it is not the consequence that is injured, but he which is deceived. Setting out, then, from these opinions, you will bear a gentle mind towards any man who may revile you. For, say on each occasion, So it appeared to him.

When someone hurts you or speaks badly about you, remember that they do it or say it because they believe it is right for them to act that way. It's not possible for them to follow what seems right to you, but rather what seems right to them. Therefore, if they think it's wrong, they are the ones who are hurt, being misled. If someone takes a true conclusion to be false, it's not the conclusion that's wrong; it's the person who is misled. Starting from this understanding, you'll be more forgiving toward anyone who insults you. Just remind yourself each time, It seemed that way to them.


CHAPTER XIV.

that everything has two sides.

Every matter hath two handles—by the one it may be carried; by the other, not. If thy brother do thee wrong, take not this thing by the handle, He wrongs me; for that228 is the handle whereby it may not be carried. But take it rather by the handle, He is my brother, nourished with me; and thou wilt take it by a handle whereby it may be carried.

Every issue has two ways to approach it—one that helps you deal with it, and another that doesn't. If your brother wrongs you, don't focus on it as, He's wronging me; that’s the way that won't help you handle it. Instead, think of it as, He is my brother, raised alongside me; and you'll be able to deal with it more effectively.


CHAPTER XV.

on specific false conclusions.

There is no true conclusion in these reasonings: I am richer than thou, therefore I am better: I am more eloquent than thou, therefore I am better. But the conclusions are rather these: I am richer than thou, therefore my wealth is better: I am more eloquent than thou, therefore my speech is better. But thou art not wealth, and thou art not speech.

There’s no real conclusion in these arguments: I have more money than you, so I’m better: I’m more articulate than you, so I’m better. But the real conclusions are more like: I have more money than you, so my wealth is better: I’m more articulate than you, so my speech is better. But you are not wealth, and you are not speech.


CHAPTER XVI.

perception and judgment.

1. Doth a man bathe himself quickly? Then, say not, Wrongly, but Quickly. Doth he drink much wine? Then say not, Wrongly, but Much. For whence do you know if it were ill done till you have understood his opinion?

1. Does a man wash himself quickly? Then, say not, Wrongly, but Quickly. Does he drink a lot of wine? Then say not, Wrongly, but Much. For how do you know if it was done badly until you have understood his viewpoint?

2. Thus it shall not befall you to assent229 to any other things than those whereof you are truly and directly sensible.1

2. Therefore, you should only agree to things that you can truly and directly perceive.2291

3. What is the cause of assenting to anything? The appearance that it is so. But if it appear to be not so, it is impossible to assent to it. Wherefore? For that this is the nature of the mind, to receive the true with favor, the false with disfavor, and the uncertain with indifference. The proof of this? Be sure, if you can, at this moment, that it is night. You cannot. Cease to be sure that it is day. You cannot. Be sure that the stars are odd in number, or that they are even. You cannot. When, therefore, any man shall assent to what is false, know that he had no will to consent to falsehood; for, as saith Plato, no soul is willingly deprived of the truth, but the false appeared to it to be true. Come, then, what have we in actions corresponding to this true and false? The seemly and the unseemly, the profitable and the unprofitable, that which concerns me and that which doth not concern me, and such like. Can any man think that a certain thing is for his profit, and not elect to do it? He cannot. How, then, is it with her who saith—

3. What makes someone agree to something? The belief that it’s true. But if it seems untrue, it’s impossible to agree. Why? Because the mind naturally embraces what’s true, rejects what’s false, and is indifferent to what’s uncertain. How can we prove this? Try to be sure right now that it’s night. You can’t. Stop being sure that it’s day. You can’t. Try to be sure the stars are either an odd or even number. You can’t. Therefore, when someone agrees to something false, know that they didn’t intend to agree to a lie; as Plato says, no soul willingly forgoes the truth; instead, what is false appeared to be true. So, what do we have in actions that align with this true and false? The right and wrong, the beneficial and harmful, what affects me and what doesn’t, and so on. Can anyone really believe something is in their best interest and not choose to do it? They can’t. So, what about her who says—

“And will I know the evils I shall do,
But wrath is lord of all my purposes?”

Medea, 1079.

“And will I be aware of the wrongs I will commit,
But anger is in charge of all my intentions?”

Medea, 1079.

For, did she hold this very thing, to gratify her wrath and avenge herself on her husband230 more profitable than to spare her children? Even so: but she was deceived. Show her clearly that she was deceived, and she will not do it; but so long as you show it not, what else hath she to follow than the thing as it appears to her? Nothing. Wherefore, then, have you indignation with her, that the unhappy wretch has gone astray concerning the greatest things, and has become a viper instead of a human being? If anything, will you not rather pity, as we pity the blind and the lame, those that are blinded and lamed in the chiefest of their faculties?

For did she believe that taking this action, to satisfy her anger and get back at her husband230 was more beneficial than sparing her children? Even so, she was misled. Show her clearly that she was misled, and she won’t do it; but as long as you don’t show her, what else can she pursue except what seems real to her? Nothing. So why are you angry with her for straying regarding the most important things and becoming a monster instead of a human being? Shouldn’t you feel pity, like we do for the blind and the crippled, for those who are blinded and crippled in their most essential abilities?

4. ——“So that all these great and dreadful deeds have this same origin in the appearance of the thing?”

4. ——“So all these incredible and terrifying actions come from the same place in how things look?”

The same, and no other. The Iliad is nought but appearance, and the use of appearances. The thing that appeared to Paris was the carrying off of the wife of Menelaus; the thing that appeared to Helen was to accompany him. Had it, then, appeared to Menelaus to be sensible that it was a gain to be deprived of such a wife, what would have happened? Not only had there been no Iliad, but no Odyssey neither.

The same, and no other. The Iliad is just a facade, and the use of facades. What Paris saw was the abduction of Menelaus's wife; what Helen saw was a chance to go with him. If Menelaus had thought it wise to be rid of such a wife, what would have happened? Not only would there be no Iliad, but also no Odyssey.

——“On such a little thing do such great ones hang?”

——“Do such big things really depend on such small ones?”

But what talk is this of great things? Wars and seditions and destructions of many men, and overthrow of cities? And what is there of great in these? Nothing. For what is there of greatness in the deaths of231 many oxen and sheep, and the burning or overthrow of many nests of swallows or storks?

But what’s this talk about big things? Wars, rebellions, destruction of many people, and the fall of cities? What’s so great about any of it? Nothing. Because what’s great about the deaths of231 countless oxen and sheep, or the burning down or destruction of many swallow or stork nests?

——“But are these things like unto those?”

——“But are these things similar to those?”

They are most like. The bodies of men are destroyed, and the bodies of oxen and of sheep. The dwellings of men are burned, and the nests of storks. What is there great, what is there awful in this? Or show me wherein differeth the dwelling of a man, as a dwelling, from the nest of a stork, save that the one buildeth his little houses of planks and tiles and bricks, and the other of sticks and mud?

They are very similar. The bodies of men are broken, and so are the bodies of oxen and sheep. The homes of men are burned down, along with the nests of storks. What’s so significant or terrible about this? Or show me how a man's home, as a home, is different from a stork's nest, except that one is built with planks, tiles, and bricks, while the other is made of sticks and mud?

——“Are a stork and a man, then, alike?”

——“So, are a stork and a man really alike?”

What say you? In body they are most like.

What do you think? In terms of appearance, they are quite similar.

——“Doth a man, then, differ in no respect from a stork?”

——“Does a man, then, differ in any way from a stork?”

God forbid; but in these matters there is no difference.

God forbid; but in these situations, there’s no difference.

——“Wherein, then, doth he differ?”

“Where does he differ?”

Seek, and you shall find that in another thing there is a difference. Look if it be not in the observing and studying of what he doth; look if it be not in his social instinct, in his faith, his reverence, his steadfastness, his understanding. Where, then, is the great Good or Evil for man? There, where the difference is. If this be saved, and abide, as it were, in a fortress, and rev232erence be not depraved, nor faith, nor understanding, then is the man also saved. But if one of these things perish, or be taken by storm, then doth the man also perish. And in this it is that great actions are done. It was a mighty downfall, they say, for Paris, when the Greeks came, and when they sacked Troy, and when his brothers perished. Not so: for through another’s act can no man fall—that was the sacking of the storks’ nests. But the downfall was then when he lost reverence and faith, when he betrayed hospitality and violated decorum. When was the fall of Achilles? When Patroclus died? God forbid; but when he was wrathful, when he bewept the loss of his girl, when he forgot that he was there not to win mistresses but to make war. These, for men, are downfall and storming and overthrow, when right opinions are demolished or depraved.

Seek, and you will find that there’s a difference in another aspect. Check if it’s not in observing and studying what he does; consider if it’s not in his social instincts, his beliefs, his respect, his determination, his understanding. So, where is the true Good or Evil for humans? It’s where the difference lies. If this is preserved, and remains, almost like being in a fortress, and if respect, faith, and understanding aren’t corrupted, then the person is also safe. But if any of these things perishes or is taken away, then the person also perishes. This is how great actions are accomplished. They say it was a huge downfall for Paris when the Greeks arrived, sacked Troy, and when his brothers died. Not really; no one can fall through someone else’s actions—that was just the plundering of storks’ nests. The real downfall was when he lost respect and faith, when he betrayed hospitality and broke decorum. When did Achilles fall? When Patroclus died? God forbid; it was when he became angry, when he mourned the loss of his girl, when he forgot he was there not to win lovers but to fight a war. For men, these are the downfalls, the storms, and the collapses, when righteous opinions are destroyed or corrupted.


CHAPTER XVII.

that the philosopher should show the common people actions, not just words.

1. Thou shalt never proclaim thyself a philosopher, nor speak much among the vulgar of the philosophic maxims; but do the things that follow from the maxims. For example, do not discourse at a feast upon233 how one ought to eat, but eat as one ought. For remember that even so Socrates everywhere banished ostentation, so that men used to come to him desiring that he would recommend them to teachers of philosophy, and he brought them away and did so, so well did he bear to be overlooked.

1. You should never call yourself a philosopher or talk too much around regular people about philosophical ideas; instead, live by those ideas. For instance, don’t talk at a party about how one should eat, just eat properly. Remember, even Socrates avoided showiness; people would come to him wanting him to introduce them to philosophy teachers, and he would simply take them away instead, showing how comfortable he was being unnoticed.

2. And if among the vulgar discourse should arise concerning some maxim of thy philosophy, do thou, for the most part, keep silence, for there is great risk that thou straightway vomit up what thou hast not digested. And when some one shall say to thee, Thou knowest naught, and it bites thee not, then know that thou hast begun the work.

2. And if people start talking about some principle of your philosophy, mostly stay quiet, because there’s a good chance you’ll end up ranting about things you haven't fully thought through. And when someone says to you, You know nothing, and it doesn't bother you, then know that you've started making progress.

3. And as sheep do not bring their food to the shepherds to show how much they have eaten, but digesting inwardly their provender, bear outwardly wool and milk, even so do not thou, for the most part, display the maxims before the vulgar, but rather the works which follow from them when they are digested.

3. Just as sheep don’t bring their food to the shepherds to show how much they’ve eaten, but instead process their feed internally to produce wool and milk, you should not, for the most part, showcase the principles to the masses. Instead, focus on the actions that result from those principles once they’ve been internalized.


CHAPTER XVIII.

asceticism.

When you have adapted the body to a frugal way of living, do not flatter yourself on that, nor if you drink only water, say, on every234 opportunity, I drink only water. And if you desire at any time to inure yourself to labor and endurance, do it to yourself and not unto the world. And do not embrace the statues; but some time when you are exceedingly thirsty take a mouthful of cold water, and spit it out, and say nothing about it.

When you've trained your body to live simply, don’t get cocky about it, and if you only drink water, don’t brag every chance you get, saying, I drink only water. If you ever want to toughen yourself up with hard work and endurance, do it for yourself, not for others. Don’t show off your achievements; instead, when you're really thirsty, take a sip of cold water, spit it out, and keep it to yourself.


CHAPTER XIX.

tokens.

1. The position and token of the vulgar: he looks never to himself for benefit or hurt, but always to outward things. The position and character of the philosopher: he looks for benefit or hurt only to himself.

1. The position and attitude of the average person: he never considers his own well-being or harm, but always focuses on external factors. The position and character of the philosopher: he seeks to understand benefit or harm only in relation to himself.

2. The tokens of one that is making advance: he blames none, he praises none, he accuses none, he complains of none; he speaks never of himself, as being somewhat, or as knowing aught. When he is thwarted or hindered in aught, he accuseth himself. If one should praise him, he laughs at him in his sleeve; if one should blame him, he makes no defense. He goes about like the sick and feeble, fearing to move the parts that are settling together before they have taken hold. He hath taken out of himself all pursuit, and hath turned all avoidance to things in our power which are contrary to nature. Toward all things he will keep his235 inclination slack. If he is thought foolish or unlearned, he regardeth it not. In a word, he watches himself as he would a treacherous enemy.

2. The signs of someone who is making progress: he blames no one, praises no one, accuses no one, and complains about no one; he never talks about himself, either as someone special or as someone who knows anything. When he faces obstacles or setbacks, he blames himself. If someone praises him, he smiles to himself; if someone criticizes him, he doesn’t respond. He moves like someone who is sick and weak, afraid to disturb the parts that are coming together before they are fully set. He has removed all ambition from himself and has redirected all avoidance towards things within our control that go against nature. He will keep his inclination towards all things relaxed. If people think he is foolish or uneducated, he doesn’t care. In short, he watches himself as if he’s a deceptive enemy.


CHAPTER XX.

that the logical art is essential.

1. Since Reason is that by which all other things are organized and perfected,1 it is meet that itself should not remain unorganized. But by what shall it be organized? For it is clear that this must be either by itself or by some other thing. But this must be Reason; or something else which is greater than Reason, which is impossible.

1. Since Reason is what organizes and perfects all things,1 it makes sense that it should also be organized. But what will organize it? It’s clear that this must be either by itself or by something else. But this must be Reason or something greater than Reason, which isn't possible.

2. “Yea,” one may say, “but it is more pressing to cure our vices, and the like.”

2. “Yeah,” someone might say, “but it's more urgent to fix our faults and so on.”

You desire, then, to hear something of these things? Hear then; but if you shall say to me, I know not if you are reasoning truly or falsely? or if I utter something ambiguous, and you shall bid me distinguish, shall I lose patience with you and tell you, It is more pressing to cure our vices than chop logic?

You want to hear about these things, right? Listen then; but if you say to me, I’m not sure if you’re thinking clearly or not? or if I say something unclear, and you ask me to clarify, will I lose my patience and respond, It’s more important to fix our flaws than to debate semantics?

3. For this reason I think the logical are set at the beginning of our study, even as before the measuring of corn we set the examination of the measure. For unless we236 shall first establish what is a modius2 and what is a balance, how shall we be able to measure or weigh anything?

3. For this reason, I believe we need to clarify the basics at the start of our study, just like we first determine the size of a measure before measuring grains. Because unless we first establish what a modius2 is and what a balance is, how can we measure or weigh anything?

4. In this case, then, if you have not understood and accurately investigated the criterion of all other things, and that through which they are understood, shall we be able to investigate and understand anything else? and how could we? Yea, but a modius is a wooden thing, and barren. But it measures corn. And logic is also barren. As regards this, indeed, we shall see. But even if one should grant this, it sufficeth that logic is that which distinguishes and investigates other things, and, as one may say, measures and weighs them. Who saith these things? is it Chrysippus alone and Zeno and Cleanthes? but doth not Antisthenes3 say it? And who wrote that the investigation of terms is the beginning of education?—was it not Socrates? and of whom doth Xenophon write that he began with the investigation of terms, what each of them signified?

4. In this case, then, if you haven't understood and thoroughly examined the basis of everything else, and the means by which they are understood, how can we investigate and understand anything else? And how could we? Sure, but a modius is just a wooden thing, and it serves no purpose. But it does measure grain. And logic is also unproductive. Regarding this, we'll see. But even if we accept this, it’s enough to say that logic is what distinguishes and examines other things, and, you could say, measures and weighs them. Who states this? Is it just Chrysippus, Zeno, and Cleanthes? Doesn’t Antisthenes3 also say it? And who wrote that examining terms is the start of education?—wasn’t it Socrates? And about whom does Xenophon write that he began with exploring the meanings of terms, what each of them meant?


CHAPTER XXI.

grammar expert or wise person.

When some one may exalt himself in that he is able to understand and expound the works of Chrysippus, say then to thyself:237 If Chrysippus had not written obscurely, this man would have had nothing whereon to exalt himself. But I, what do I desire? Is it not to learn to understand Nature and to follow her? I inquire, then, who can expound Nature to me, and hearing that Chrysippus can, I betake myself to him. But I do not understand his writings, therefore I seek an expounder for them. And so far there is nothing exalted. But when I have found the expounder, it remaineth for me to put in practice what he declares to me, and in this alone is there anything exalted. But if I shall admire the bare exposition, what else have I made of myself than a grammarian instead of a philosopher, save, indeed, that the exposition is of Chrysippus and not of Homer? When, therefore, one may ask me to lecture on the philosophy of Chrysippus, I shall rather blush when I am not able to show forth works of a like nature and in harmony with the words.

When someone brags about being able to understand and explain the works of Chrysippus, I think to myself: 237 If Chrysippus hadn’t written in such a confusing way, this person would have nothing to boast about. But what do I want? Isn’t it to learn how to understand Nature and follow her? So, I look for someone who can explain Nature to me, and when I hear that Chrysippus can, I turn to him. But I can’t understand his writings, which is why I’m looking for someone to explain them. Up to this point, there’s nothing impressive. Once I find that explainer, I need to actually practice what they teach me, and that’s where the real merit lies. But if I simply admire the explanation itself, what have I become other than a grammarian instead of a philosopher, except that the explanation is about Chrysippus and not Homer? Therefore, when someone asks me to lecture on Chrysippus’s philosophy, I’d feel more embarrassed if I can’t present works that are similar and in line with those words.


CHAPTER XXII.

ACHIEVEMENTS.

1. The clearer be the characters in which a book is writ, the more pleasantly and conveniently shall any man read it. Thus also a man shall listen more conveniently to any238 discourse if it be conveyed in well-ordered and graceful words. Be it not said, then, that there is no faculty of expression, for this is the thought of a man both impious and cowardly1—impious, for he holds in disesteem the gracious gifts of God, as if he would take away the serviceable faculty of seeing, or of hearing, or indeed this of speaking. Did God give the eyes for nothing? And was it for nothing that He mingled in them a spirit of such might and cunning as to reach a long way off and receive the impression of visible forms—a messenger so swift and faithful? Was it for nothing that He gave the intervening air such efficacy, and made it elastic, so that being, in a manner, strained,2 our vision should traverse it? Was it for nothing that He made Light, without which there were no benefit of any other thing?

1. The clearer the characters in which a book is written, the more enjoyable and easier it is for anyone to read. Similarly, a person will more easily listen to any discussion if it's presented in well-structured and elegant language. So let’s not say that there is no ability to express oneself, because that thought comes from someone who is both ungrateful and fearful1—ungrateful, because they dismiss the wonderful gifts of God, as if they want to eliminate the useful ability to see, hear, or even speak. Did God give us eyes for no reason? And was it for no reason that He infused them with the spirit of such power and cleverness that they can see far away and capture the impression of visible forms—a messenger so quick and reliable? Was it for no reason that He made the air so effective and elastic, so that, in a way, it stretches,2 allowing our vision to pass through it? Was it for no reason that He created Light, without which nothing would hold any benefit?

2. Man, be not unthankful for these things, nor yet unmindful of better things. For seeing and hearing, and, by Zeus, for life itself, and the things that work together to maintain it, for dried fruits, for wine, for oil, do thou give thanks to God. But remember that He hath given thee another thing which is better than all these—that, namely, which uses them, which approves them, which taketh account of the worth of each. For what is that which declareth concerning all these faculties how much each of them is worth? Is it the faculty itself? Heard you239 ever the faculty of vision tell aught concerning itself? or that of hearing? or wheat, or barley, or a horse, or a dog? Nay, but as ministers and slaves are they appointed, to serve the faculty which makes use of appearances. And if you would learn how much any of them is worth, of whom will you inquire? who shall give answer? How then shall any other faculty be greater than this, which both useth the others as its servants, and the same approveth each of them and declareth concerning them? For which of them knoweth what itself is, and what it is worth? Which of them knoweth when it behooves to make use of it, and when not? What is that which openeth and closeth the eyes, turning them away from things which they should not behold, and guiding them towards other things? Is it the faculty of vision? Nay, but the faculty of the Will. What is that which closeth and openeth the ears?—that in obedience to which they become busy and curious, or again, unmoved by what they hear? Is it the faculty of hearing? It is no other than that of the Will.

2. Man, do not be ungrateful for these things, nor forget the more important ones. Be thankful for seeing and hearing, and, by Zeus, for life itself, and all the things that help maintain it—like dried fruits, wine, and oil. Give thanks to God for these. But remember that He has given you something even better than all these—namely, the ability that uses them, that appreciates them, that understands their value. What is it that judges the worth of all these abilities? Is it the ability itself? Have you ever heard the ability of sight talk about itself? Or that of hearing? Or wheat, barley, a horse, or a dog? No, they are like servants and helpers meant to serve the ability that perceives appearances. And if you want to know how much any of them is worth, who will you ask? Who will respond? So, how can any other ability be greater than this one, which uses the others as its servants, evaluates each of them, and informs us about them? Which of them understands what it is and what it’s worth? Which one knows when it should be used and when it shouldn't? What is it that opens and closes the eyes, turning them away from things they shouldn't see, and directing them toward others? Is it the ability of sight? No, it is the Will. What is it that opens and closes the ears?—that which makes them active and curious, or, alternatively, unresponsive to what they hear? Is it the ability of hearing? It is none other than the Will.

3. Being then so great a faculty, and set over all the rest, let it come to us and tell us that the best of existing things is the flesh! Not even if the flesh itself affirmed that it was the best, would any man have patience with it. Now what is it, Epicurus, which declares this doctrine, that the flesh is best, 240 which wrote concerning the End of Being, and on Laws of Nature, and on the Canon of Truth?—which let thy beard grow? which wrote, when dying, that it was spending its last day and a happy one?3 Is it the flesh or the Will? Wilt thou affirm, then, that thou hast aught better than the Will? Nay, but art thou not mad—so blind, in truth, and deaf as thou art?

3. Given that it's such a powerful thing and stands above everything else, let it come forward and tell us that the best of all things is the flesh! Even if the flesh itself claimed to be the best, no one would tolerate it. Now tell us, Epicurus, who teaches that flesh is the best, you who wrote about the End of Being, the Laws of Nature, and the Canon of Truth?—is it you with your growing beard? You, who wrote while dying that it was your last day and a happy one? 3 Is it the flesh or the Will? Will you really say that you have anything better than the Will? No, but aren't you mad—truly so blind and deaf as you are?

4. What then? Shall any man contemn the other faculties? God forbid! Doth any man say that there is no use or eminence in the faculty of eloquence? God forbid—that were senseless, impious, thankless towards God. But to each thing its true worth. For there is a certain use in an ass, but not so much as in an ox; and in a dog, but not so much as in a slave; and in a slave, but not so much as in a citizen; and in citizens, but not so much as in governors. Yet not because other things are better is the use which anything affords to be contemned. There is a certain worth in the faculty of eloquence, but not so much as in the Will. When, then, I speak thus, let no man deem that I would have you neglect the power of eloquence, for I would not have you neglect your eyes, or ears, or hands, or feet, or raiment, or shoes. But if one ask me which is, then, the best of existing things, what shall I say? The faculty of eloquence I cannot say, but that of the Will, when it is made right. For this is that which useth the other, and all 241 the other faculties, both small and great. When this is set right, a man that was not good becomes good; when it is not right, the man becomes evil. This is that whereby we fail or prosper—whereby we blame others, or approve them; the neglect of which is the misery, and the care of it the happiness, of mankind.

4. So what now? Should anyone look down on other abilities? Absolutely not! Does anyone claim that the ability to speak well has no value or importance? Absolutely not—that would be foolish, wrong, and ungrateful to God. But everything has its rightful value. For example, a donkey has some utility, but not as much as an ox; a dog has some utility, but not as much as a slave; a slave has some utility, but not as much as a citizen; and citizens have some utility, but not as much as governors. However, just because some things are more valuable, that doesn't mean we should disregard the usefulness of anything else. There is some value in the ability to speak well, but it isn't as significant as the Will. So, when I say this, don’t think I'm suggesting you ignore the power of eloquence, because I wouldn’t want you to ignore your eyes, ears, hands, feet, clothing, or shoes. But if someone asks me which is the best of all things, what should I say? I can’t say the ability to speak well, but rather the Will, when it is aligned properly. Because this is what utilizes everything else, both minor and major. When this is right, a person who was bad becomes good; when it’s wrong, the person turns evil. This is what determines our success or failure—how we blame or approve of others; neglecting this leads to misery, while caring for it brings happiness to humanity.

5. But to take away the faculty of eloquence, and to say that there is in truth no such faculty, is not only the part of a thankless man toward Him who hath given it, but also of a cowardly. For such a one seemeth to me to fear lest if there be any faculty of this kind we shall not be able to despise it. Such are they also which say that there is no difference between beauty and ugliness. Then were a man to be affected in like manner on seeing Thersites and Achilles, or on seeing Helen and any common woman?4 Truly, a thought of fools and boors, and of men who know not the nature of each thing, but fear lest, if one perceive the difference, he shall be straightway swept away and overpowered by it. But the great thing is this—to leave to each the faculty that it hath, and so leaving it to scan the worth of the faculty, and to learn what is the greatest of existing things; and everywhere to pursue this, and be zealous about this, making all other things accessory to this, albeit, according to our powers, not neglecting even these. For of the eyes also must we take care, yet 242 not as of the best thing; yet of these, too, by the very exercise of the best thing; since that shall in no other wise subsist according to Nature save by wise dealing in these matters, and preferring certain things to others.

5. But to take away the ability to speak well, and to claim that such an ability doesn’t truly exist, is not only ungrateful towards the one who gave it, but also cowardly. It seems to me that such a person is afraid that if this ability exists, we won’t be able to look down on it. They are like those who say there’s no difference between beauty and ugliness. Would a person feel the same way when seeing Thersites compared to Achilles, or when comparing Helen to an ordinary woman?4 Truly, this is the thinking of fools and ignorant people who don’t understand the nature of things, but fear that if one recognizes the difference, they will be overwhelmed by it. But the important thing is to allow each ability to exist as it is, and by doing so, to evaluate the worth of that ability, learning what is the greatest among all things; and to strive for this passionately, making everything else secondary to it, even while not neglecting those other things to the best of our ability. For we must also take care of our eyes, yet not as if they are the most important thing; still, we should manage them through the practice of the best thing, since it can only thrive according to Nature by wisely handling these matters and prioritizing certain things over others.

6. But what is done in the world? As if a man journeying to his own country should pass by an excellent inn, and the inn being agreeable to him, should stay, and abide in it. Man, thou hast forgotten thy purpose; thy journeying was not to this, but through this. But this is pleasant. And how many other inns are pleasant, and how many meadows? yet merely for passing through. But thy business is this, to arrive in thy native country, to remove the fears of thy kinsfolk, to do, thyself, the duties of a citizen, to marry, to beget children, to fill the customary offices. For thou art not come into this world to choose out its pleasanter places, but to dwell in those where thou wast born, and whereof thou wast appointed to be a citizen. And so in some wise it is with this matter. Since, by the aid of speech and such like deliverance, we must come to our aim, and purify the Will, and order aright the faculty which makes use of appearances; and it is necessary that this deliverance of the doctrines come to pass by a certain use of speech, and with a certain art and trenchancy of expression, there are some which are taken captive by these things themselves, 243 and abide in them—one in the gift of speech, one in syllogisms, one in sophisms, one in some such another of these inns, and there they linger and molder away, as though they were fallen among the Sirens.

6. But what’s happening in the world? It’s like a guy traveling back to his own country who passes an amazing inn, finds it appealing, and decides to stay there. Man, you’ve forgotten your goal; your journey wasn’t meant to end here, but to go through it. But this is nice. And how many other inns are nice, and how many meadows? Yet, they’re just for passing through. Your real mission is to reach your homeland, to ease your relatives’ worries, to fulfill your duties as a citizen, to get married, have kids, and take on the normal roles. You didn’t come into this world to pick out the nicer places, but to live in the ones where you were born and where you were meant to be a citizen. It’s similar with this topic. With the help of language and other forms of communication, we need to reach our goals, refine our will, and properly organize how we perceive things. This understanding needs to happen through a specific use of language, along with a certain skill and clarity of expression. Some people get trapped by these things themselves, 243 and stay stuck in them— one gets lost in the art of speech, another in logic, another in tricky arguments, or in some other one of these inns, and they linger and waste away, as if they’ve fallen among the Sirens.

7. Man, thy business was to make thyself fit to use the appearances that encounter thee according to Nature, not missing what thou pursuest, nor falling into what thou wouldst avoid, never failing of good fortune, nor overtaken of ill fortune, free, unhindered, uncompelled, agreeing with the governance of Zeus, obedient unto the same, and well-pleased therein; blaming none, charging none, able of thy whole soul to utter these lines:—

7. Man, your task is to prepare yourself to engage with the experiences that come your way in harmony with Nature, without losing sight of what you seek or stumbling into what you wish to avoid, always experiencing good fortune and not being caught up in bad fortune, free, unimpeded, not forced, in agreement with the will of Zeus, following it willingly, and finding satisfaction in it; blaming no one, accusing no one, able with all your heart to express these lines:—

"Guide me, Zeus, and you, Destiny!"

Then, having this for thy business, if some little matter of eloquence please thee, or certain speculations, wilt thou stay and abide in them, and elect to settle in them, forgetting all that is at home? and wilt thou say, These things are admirable? Who saith they are not admirable? but for passing through, like inns. What should hinder one that spoke like Demosthenes to be unfortunate? or one that could resolve syllogisms like Chrysippus to be miserable, to grieve, to envy; in a word, to be troubled and unhappy? Nothing. Thou seest now that all these things are but inns, and of no worth; but our business was another thing. When 244 I say these things to certain persons, they think I am rejecting all care about language or speculation. But I do not reject this; I reject the endless occupation with them, the putting our hopes in them. If a man by this teaching injureth those who hear him, reckon me also among those who do this injury. For I cannot, in order to please you, see that one thing is best and chief of all, and say that another is.5

Then, with this as your focus, if you're into a bit of eloquence or certain ideas, will you stay and get lost in them, choosing to settle there and forget everything back home? And will you say, These things are amazing? Who says they aren’t amazing? But it’s just a stopover, like inns. What would stop someone who speaks like Demosthenes from being unfortunate? Or someone who can solve syllogisms like Chrysippus from feeling miserable, grieving, being jealous; in short, being troubled and unhappy? Nothing. You see now that all these things are just inns and hold no value; but our purpose was something else. When I say this to certain people, they think I’m dismissing any concern for language or ideas. But I’m not dismissing that; I’m rejecting the endless obsession with them, relying on them for our hopes. If someone’s teaching harms those who listen, count me among those who cause that harm. I can’t, to please you, acknowledge that one thing is the best and most important, while saying that another is. 5


CHAPTER XXIII.

steadfastness.

Abide in the precepts as in laws which it were impious to transgress. And whatsoever any man may say of thee, regard it not; for neither is this anything of thine own.

Abide by the rules as if they were laws that would be wrong to break. And whatever anyone might say about you, don’t pay attention to it; for it doesn’t belong to you anyway.


CHAPTER XXIV.

how long is it?

1. How long wilt thou delay to hold thyself worthy of the best things, and to transgress in nothing the decrees of Reason? Thou hast received the maxims by which it behooves thee to live; and dost thou live by 245 them? What teacher dost thou still look for to whom to hand over the task of thy correction? Thou art no longer a boy, but already a man full grown. If, then, thou art neglectful and sluggish, and ever making resolve after resolve, and fixing one day after another on which thou wilt begin to attend to thyself, thou wilt forget that thou art making no advance, but wilt go on as one of the vulgar sort, both living and dying.

1. How long will you wait to consider yourself worthy of the best things and to avoid breaking the principles of Reason? You have received the guidelines you should live by; are you actually living by 245 them? What teacher are you still waiting for to take on the job of correcting you? You are no longer a boy but a fully grown man. If you keep being careless and lazy, making one resolution after another, and choosing one day after another to start taking care of yourself, you'll forget that you're making no progress and will end up living and dying like everyone else.

2. Now, at last, therefore hold thyself worthy to live as a man of full age and one who is pressing forward, and let everything that appeareth the best be to thee as an inviolable law. And if any toil or pleasure or reputation or the loss of it be laid upon thee, remember that now is the contest, here already are the Olympian games, and there is no deferring them any longer, and that in a single day and in a single trial ground is to be lost or gained.

2. Now, at last, see yourself as worthy to live like a fully grown person who's moving forward, and let everything that seems the best be your unbreakable rule. And if you face any hard work, pleasure, status, or the loss of it, remember that this is the competition, the Olympic games are already here, and there's no postponing them any longer, and that in just one day and one trial, you could win or lose everything.

3. It was thus that Socrates made himself what he was, in all things that befell him having regard to no other thing than Reason. But thou, albeit thou be yet no Socrates, yet as one that would be Socrates, so it behooveth thee to live.

3. In this way, Socrates became who he was, facing everything that happened to him with only Reason in mind. But you, even if you're not yet a Socrates, should live as someone who aspires to be like him.


CHAPTER XXV.

philosophical concepts.

1. The first and most necessary point in philosophy is the use of the precepts, for example, not to lie. The second is the proof of these, as, Whence it comes that it is wrong to lie? The third is that which giveth confirmation and coherence to the others, such as, Whence it comes that this is proof? for what is proof? what is consequence? what is contradiction? what is truth? what is falsehood?

1. The first and most important thing in philosophy is following the basic rules, like not lying. The second part is proving these rules, such as asking why lying is wrong. The third part provides support and connection to the others, asking things like, where does this proof come from? What is proof? What is consequence? What is contradiction? What is truth? What is falsehood?

2. Thus the third point is necessary through the second, and the second through the first. But the most necessary of all, and that when we should rest, is the first, But we do the contrary. For we linger on the third point, and spend all our zeal on that, while of the first we are utterly neglectful, and thus we are liars; but the explanation of how it is shown to be wrong to lie we have ever ready to hand.

2. So, the third point relies on the second, and the second relies on the first. However, the most essential of all, the one where we should take a break, is the first. Instead, we do the opposite. We focus on the third point and put all our energy into that, while completely ignoring the first, and because of this, we are dishonest. Yet we always have an explanation ready for why it's wrong to lie.


CHAPTER XXVI.

memories.1

Hold in readiness for every need, these—

Hold ready for every need, these—

“Lead me, O Zeus, and thou, Destiny, whithersoever ye have appointed me to go, and may I follow fearlessly. But if in an evil mind I be unwilling, still must I follow.”

“Guide me, Zeus, and you, Destiny, wherever you have chosen for me to go, and may I follow without fear. But even if I resist with a bad attitude, I still have to follow.”

“That man is wise among us, and hath understanding of things divine, who hath nobly agreed with Necessity.”

“That man is wise among us, and has an understanding of divine things, who has nobly come to terms with Necessity.”

But the third also—

But the third one too—

“O Crito, if so it seem good to the Gods so let it be. Anytus and Meletus are able to kill me indeed, but to harm me, never.”

“O Crito, if that's what the Gods want, so be it. Anytus and Meletus can certainly kill me, but they can never truly harm me.”

THE END.


NOTES

CLEANTHES’ HYMN TO ZEUS.

1. Professor Mahaffy, in his Greek Life and Thought, quotes the full text of this noble Hymn, which, he thinks, “would alone redeem the Hellenistic age, as it stands before us, from the charge of mere artificiality and pedantry.”

1. Professor Mahaffy, in his Greek Life and Thought, quotes the complete text of this admirable Hymn, which he feels “would alone redeem the Hellenistic age, as it appears before us, from the accusation of being solely artificial and pedantic.”

2. ἰῆς μίμημα λαχόντες μοῦνον. This is Zeller’s reading, but not Professor Mahaffy’s who has ἑνὸς μίμημα.

2. picking up the mimicry of one. This is Zeller’s interpretation, but not Professor Mahaffy’s, who has the mimicry of one.

BOOK I.

Chapter 1.

1. “Enter by the door” (cf. S. John, x. 1). The parallelisms in thought and expression between Epictetus and the New Testament have often been noticed, and the reader will discover many others, to which I have not thought it necessary to draw attention.

1. “Enter through the door” (cf. S. John, x. 1). The similarities in ideas and language between Epictetus and the New Testament have often been pointed out, and readers will find many more that I haven't felt the need to highlight.

2. “Conceit:” οἴησις, Einbildung.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ “Conceit:” belief, imagination.

3. “To be elated:” ἐπαίρεσθαι. One might translate, “to be puffed up,” except that that expression is only used in a bad sense, and one may be “elated” in anything that is truly of the nature of the good. The Stoics distinguished between χαρά, joy, and ἡδονή, pleasure; not rejecting or despising the former.

3. “To be elated:” ἐπαίρεσθαι. One might translate it as “to be puffed up,” but that phrase is typically used negatively, whereas one can be “elated” about anything that genuinely embodies goodness. The Stoics made a distinction between χαρά, which means joy, and ἡδονή, meaning pleasure; they did not dismiss or look down on the former.

Chapter 2.

1. τὰ μέν εἰσιν ἐφ’ ἡμῖν, τὰ δὲ οὐκ ἐφ’ ἡμῖν. A fundamental distinction in the Epictetean system, which he 250 sometimes expresses by the phrases, τὰ ἡμέτερα and τὰ τῶν ἄλλων—things that are our own and things that belong to others; or τὰ ἴδια and τὰ ἀλλότρια—things that are our proper concern, and things that are alien to us.

1. Some things are within our control, while others are not. This is a key concept in Epictetus's teachings, which he sometimes describes using the terms "our things" and "the things of others"—the things we can influence and those that belong to others; or "our own" and "foreign things"—the matters that concern us and those that are outside our control. 250

2. On the Mons Palatinus in Rome there stood a temple to Fever. Upton quotes from Gruter, p. xcvii., an interesting inscription to this divinity: Febri. Divæ. Febri. Sanctæ. Febri. Magnæ. Camilla. Amata. Pro. Filio. Male. Affecto. P.

2. On the Palatine Hill in Rome, there was a temple dedicated to Fever. Upton references an intriguing inscription about this deity from Gruter, p. xcvii.: Febri. Divæ. Febri. Sanctæ. Febri. Magnæ. Camilla. Amata. Pro. Filio. Male. Affecto. P.

Chapter 3.

1. There is excellent MS. authority for this reading of the passage, which, however, is not Schweighäuser’s. The latter reads: “Be content with them, and pray to the Gods.”

1. There is strong manuscript evidence for this interpretation of the passage, which, however, is not the one given by Schweighäuser. He reads: “Be satisfied with them, and pray to the gods.”

2. “Steward of the winds.” A quotation from Homer, Od. x. 21.

2. “Guardian of the winds.” A quote from Homer, Od. x. 21.

Chapter 4.

1. “Through not being dazzled,” etc. Ἂν τὰς ὕλας μὴ θαυμάσῃ.

1. “By not being dazzled,” etc. Don’t be amazed by the materials.

Chapter 6.

1. Note that in this passage “God” and “the Gods” and “the Divine” are all synonymous terms.

1. Keep in mind that in this passage, “God,” “the Gods,” and “the Divine” all mean the same thing.

2. Or “of names.”

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Or "of names."

3. Some texts add “such as Good or Evil.”

3. Some texts include “like Good or Evil.”

Chapter 7.

1. Apparently a proverb, which maybe paralleled in its present application by Luther’s “Pecca fortiter.”

1. Apparently a saying, which might be compared in its current use to Luther’s “Pecca fortiter.”

2. A complex or conjunctive proposition is one which contains several assertions so united as to form a single statement which will be false if any one of its parts is 251 false—e.g., “Brutus was the lover and destroyer both of Cæsar and of his country.” The disjunctive is when alternative propositions are made, as “Pleasure is either good or bad, or neither good nor bad.”

2. A complex or conjunctive proposition is one that contains multiple assertions combined to create a single statement that is false if any part of it is false—e.g., “Brutus was both the lover and the destroyer of Cæsar and his country.” The disjunctive is when alternative propositions are presented, such as “Pleasure is either good, bad, or neither good nor bad.”

3. I have followed Lord Shaftesbury’s explanation of this passage, which the other commentators have given up as corrupt. It seems clear that whether the passage can stand exactly in the form in which we have it, or not, Lord Shaftesbury’s rendering represents what Epictetus originally conveyed.

3. I have gone with Lord Shaftesbury’s interpretation of this passage, which other commentators have dismissed as flawed. It’s clear that whether this passage can hold up as it is or not, Lord Shaftesbury’s version captures what Epictetus originally meant.

4. According to the usual reading, a scornful exclamation—“Thou exhort them!” I have followed the reading recommended by Schw. in his notes, although he does not adopt it in his text.

4. Based on the common interpretation, a mocking remark—“You encourage them!” I have adhered to the interpretation suggested by Schw. in his notes, even though he doesn't include it in his text.

Chapter 8.

1. The founder of the Cynic school was Antisthenes, who taught in the gymnasium named the Cynosarges, at Athens; whence the name of his school. Zeller takes this striking chapter to exhibit Epictetus’s “philosophisches Ideal,” the Cynic being the “wahrer Philosoph,” or perfect Stoic. (Phil. d. Gr. iii. S. 752.) This view seems to me no more true than that the missionary or monk is to be considered the ideal Christian. Epictetus takes pains to make it clear that the Cynic is a Stoic with a special and separate vocation, which all Stoics are by no means called upon to take up. Like Thoreau, that modern Stoic, when he went to live at Walden, the Cynic tries the extreme of abnegation in order to demonstrate practically that man has resources within himself which make him equal to any fate that circumstances can inflict.

1. The founder of the Cynic school was Antisthenes, who taught at a gymnasium called Cynosarges in Athens, which is how his school got its name. Zeller uses this notable chapter to highlight Epictetus’s “philosophical ideal,” suggesting that the Cynic is the “true philosopher” or perfect Stoic. (Phil. d. Gr. iii. S. 752.) I believe this perspective is just as inaccurate as saying that a missionary or monk represents the ideal Christian. Epictetus emphasizes that the Cynic is a Stoic with a unique and separate purpose, which not all Stoics are meant to pursue. Similar to Thoreau, that modern Stoic, when he chose to live at Walden, the Cynic embraces extreme self-denial to practically show that individuals have within them the strength to cope with any situation that life throws their way.

2. τριβώνιον, a coarse garment especially affected by the Cynics, as also by the early Christian ascetics.

2. trirboion, a rough garment commonly worn by the Cynics, as well as by early Christian ascetics.

3. “Nor pity.” Upton, in a note on Diss. i. 18. 3. (Schw.), refers to various passages in Epictetus where 252 pity and envy are mentioned together as though they were related emotions, and aptly quotes Virgil (Georg. ii. 499):—

3. “Nor pity.” Upton, in a note on Diss. i. 18. 3. (Schw.), refers to various passages in Epictetus where 252 pity and envy are mentioned together as if they were related emotions, and rightly quotes Virgil (Georg. ii. 499):—

"Either she felt pity for the needy, or she envied the one who had."

It will be clear to any careful reader that when Epictetus asserts that certain emotions or acts are unworthy of a man, he constantly means the “man” to be understood as his highest spiritual faculty, his deepest sense of reason, his soul. That we are not to pity or grieve means that that side of us which is related to the divine and eternal is not to be affected by emotions produced by calamities in mere outward and material things. St. Augustine corroborates this view in an interesting passage bearing on the Stoic doctrine of pity (De Civ. Dei. ix. 5; Schw. iv. 132):—

It will be obvious to any careful reader that when Epictetus claims certain emotions or actions are beneath a person, he always refers to "person" in the context of their highest spiritual faculty, their deepest sense of reason, their soul. The idea that we shouldn’t pity or mourn means that the part of us connected to the divine and eternal shouldn’t be influenced by emotions caused by misfortunes related to superficial and material things. St. Augustine supports this perspective in an interesting passage related to the Stoic view of pity (De Civ. Dei. ix. 5; Schw. iv. 132):—

“Misericordiam Cicero non dubitavit appellare virtutem, quam Stoicos inter vitia numerare non pudet, qui tamen, ut docuit liber Epicteti nobilissimi Stoici ex decretis Zenonis et Chrysippi, qui hujus sectæ primas partes habuerunt, hujuscemodi passiones in animum Sapientis admittunt, quem vitiis omnibus liberam esse volunt. Unde fit consequens, ut hæc ipsa non putent vitia, quando Sapienti sic accidunt, ut contra virtutem mentis rationemque nihil possunt.”

“Misericordia is a quality that Cicero confidently called a virtue, while the Stoics shamelessly list it among vices. However, as shown in the teachings of Epictetus, a renowned Stoic, based on the decisions of Zeno and Chrysippus—who were leaders of this school—they allow these kinds of passions to enter the mind of the Wise Person, whom they believe should be free from all vices. Consequently, it follows that they do not consider these to be vices when they occur in the Wise Person, as they have no power against virtue or reason.”

The particular utterances of Epictetus here alluded to by St. Augustine must have been contained in some of the lost books of the Dissertations, as nothing like them is to be found explicitly in those which survive, although the latter afford us abundant means for deducing the conclusion which St. Augustine confirms.

The specific statements of Epictetus mentioned by St. Augustine must have been in some of the lost books of the Dissertations, since nothing similar is found explicitly in the surviving texts. However, those texts provide plenty of ways to support the conclusion that St. Augustine confirms.

4. This cake seems to form a ridiculous anti-climax. But it appears to have been a vexed question in antiquity whether an ascetic philosopher might indulge in this particular luxury (πλακοῦς). Upton quotes Lucian and Diogenes Laertius for instances of this question being propounded, and an affirmative answer given (in one instance by the Cynic, Diogenes). The youth in the text is being addressed as a novice who must not use the freedom of an adept.

4. This cake seems to be an absurd letdown. However, it seems to have been a debated issue in ancient times whether an ascetic philosopher could enjoy this specific luxury (πλακοῦς). Upton cites Lucian and Diogenes Laertius as examples of this question being asked and receiving a positive response (in one case from the Cynic, Diogenes). The young man in the text is being talked to as a beginner who shouldn't act with the freedom of an expert.

5 Upton quotes from Cymbeline:—

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Upton quotes Cymbeline:—

"Does Britain have all the sunshine? Day, night, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, Are they not, but in Britain? Please, think. "There's life outside of Britain!"

But Epictetus means more than this in his allusion to sun and stars.—See Preface, xxiv. This passage would lead us to suppose that Epictetus believed in a personal existence continued for some time after death. In the end, however, even sun and stars shall vanish.—See ii. 13, 4.

But Epictetus is implying more than just this in his reference to the sun and stars.—See Preface, xxiv. This passage suggests that Epictetus thought there was a personal existence that lasts for a while after death. Ultimately, though, even the sun and stars will disappear.—See ii. 13, 4.

6. Being arrested by Philip’s people, and asked if he were a spy, Diogenes replied, “Certainly I am, O Philip; a spy of thine ill-counsel and folly, who for no necessity canst set thy life and kingdom on the chances of an hour.”

6. When captured by Philip’s men and asked if he was a spy, Diogenes replied, “Absolutely, I am, O Philip; a spy of your bad advice and foolishness, who for no reason puts your life and kingdom at the mercy of a moment.”

7. According to Upton’s conjecture, these were gladiators famous for bodily strength; and also, one would suspect, for some remarkable calamity.

7. According to Upton’s theory, these were gladiators known for their physical strength, and likely also for some extraordinary misfortune.

8. This highly crude view of the Trojan war might have been refuted out of the mouth of Epictetus himself. Evil-doers are not to be allowed their way because they are unable to hurt our souls, but the hurt may be in the cowardice or sloth that will not punish them.

8. This very simplistic perspective on the Trojan War might have been challenged by Epictetus himself. Wrongdoers shouldn't be allowed to act freely just because they can't harm our spirits; rather, the real damage may come from the cowardice or laziness that prevents us from holding them accountable.

9. By wearing his cloak half falling off, in negligent fashion. Nothing is finer or more characteristic in Epictetus than his angry scorn of the pseudo-Stoics of his day.

9. By wearing his cloak draped carelessly, he shows a laid-back attitude. Nothing captures Epictetus better than his fierce disdain for the fake Stoics of his time.

10. ἀνάκρινον τὸ δαιμόνιον. The allusion evidently is to the genius or divine spirit by which Socrates felt himself guided.

10. Examine the spirit. The reference is clearly to the guiding genius or divine spirit that Socrates believed was leading him.

11. Crates was a disciple of Diogenes. His wife was named Hipparchia. Upton quotes Menander (apud Diog. L.), “Thou wilt walk about with me in a cloak as once did his wife with Crates the Cynic.”

11. Crates was a student of Diogenes. His wife's name was Hipparchia. Upton references Menander (apud Diog. L.), “You will walk around with me in a cloak just like his wife did with Crates the Cynic.”

12. Danaus, father of the fifty Danaidæ. Æolus is mentioned in Od. x. as having six sons and six daughters.

12. Danaus, the father of the fifty Danaids. Æolus is mentioned in Od. x. as having six sons and six daughters.

13. τραπεζῆας πυλαωρούς. Il. xxi. 69.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ bank portals. Il. xxi. 69.

14. That is, he capped the quotation by quoting the following line (Il. ii. 24, 25). Not a very striking intellectual effort; but Epictetus evidently considered it a meritorious thing to know Homer well enough to quote him in one’s sleep, and he was right.

14. In other words, he finished the quote by referencing the following line (Il. ii. 24, 25). It’s not a particularly impressive mental task, but Epictetus clearly thought it was valuable to know Homer so well that you could quote him even in your sleep, and he was spot on.

15. From a poem of Cleanthes.

From a poem by Cleanthes.

BOOK II.

Chapter 1.

1. According to the view of James Harris, in a long and valuable note communicated to Upton, the “master-argument” was so called from the supreme importance of the issues with which it dealt. On these issues different leaders of the Stoics took different sides, Diodorus holding both future and past things to be necessary, Cleanthes both contingent, and Chrysippus past things to be necessary and future contingent. Any two of the three propositions mentioned in the text exclude the third. For modern philosophy the distinction between the possible and the certain in the phenomenal world has, of course, no real existence; the possible being simply that of which we do not know whether it will come to pass or not.

1. According to James Harris, in a lengthy and insightful note shared with Upton, the “master-argument” was named for the critical importance of the issues it addressed. On these issues, various Stoic leaders took different stances: Diodorus viewed both past and future events as necessary, Cleanthes saw both as contingent, while Chrysippus considered past events necessary and future events contingent. Any two of the three propositions mentioned in the text exclude the third. In modern philosophy, the distinction between what is possible and what is certain in the phenomenal world doesn't truly exist; the possible is simply what we don't know will happen or not.

2. Of course Epictetus here speaks ironically; all this is just what it is the business of a thinker to do.

2. Obviously, Epictetus is being sarcastic here; this is precisely what a thinker is supposed to do.

3. Epictetus, I suppose, means to complain that the current phrases of philosophy are dealt out in glib answer to great ethical questions, just as Homer might be quoted for an event in the life of Odysseus, by persons who in neither case think of gaining that vital conviction 255 which only the strenuous exercise of one’s own reason can produce. A little later he represents Hellanicus, the historian, as quoted on the distinction between good and evil, who never treated that subject. If it is to be a mere question of authority, one name is as good as another, since none is any use at all.

3. I think Epictetus is trying to point out that the current philosophical phrases are handed out as quick answers to significant ethical questions, just like someone might quote Homer to refer to an event in Odysseus's life, without any of them truly aiming for that essential understanding that can only come from thoroughly using one’s own reasoning. A bit later, he mentions Hellanicus, the historian, being quoted on the difference between good and evil, even though he never actually discussed that topic. If it’s just a matter of authority, then one name is just as good as another since none of them really help at all. 255

“Indifferent,” be it observed, is morally indifferent—that which has in itself no bearing on our moral state. See Chap. II. 2.

“Indifferent,” as noted, is morally indifferent—that which has itself no impact on our moral condition. See Chap. II. 2.

4. The followers of Aristotle called themselves Peripatetics.

4. Aristotle's followers referred to themselves as Peripatetics.

Chapter 2.

1. The word in the Greek is περιστάσεις, literally circumstances, but the word is evidently used in a bad sense, as equivalent to afflictions. Doom is likewise etymologically a neutral word, but one which has received an evil meaning.

1. The Greek word is περιστάσεις, which literally means circumstances, but it's clearly used negatively, similar to afflictions. Doom is also originally a neutral term, but it has taken on a bad connotation.

2. Socrates’s faith in his genius or “Dæmon” was well known. In this passage from his Apologia (which Epictetus gives from a bad text), it is doubtless the manner only that conveyed the idea of mockery. Neither Socrates nor any one else ever had better evidence of God’s existence than His voice in our conscience.

2. Socrates’s belief in his genius or “Dæmon” was well known. In this excerpt from his Apologia (which Epictetus quotes from a poor text), it's clear that only the tone conveyed a sense of mockery. Neither Socrates nor anyone else has ever had stronger proof of God’s existence than His voice in our conscience.

Chapter 4.

1. Briefly, the three divisions seem to be Action, Character, and Judgment. The last is to be approached through training in logic, in the penetration of fallacies, etc., by which means a man is to arrive at such an inward and vital conviction of the truth that he can never for a moment be taken off his guard by the delusion of Appearance.

1. In short, the three parts appear to be Action, Character, and Judgment. The last should be developed through logic training, analyzing fallacies, and so on, so that a person can reach a deep and genuine belief in the truth, making it impossible for them to be misled by mere appearances.

2. Passions, passionless, τὰ πάθη, ἀπαθής.—See Index of Philosophic Terms.

2. Emotions, emotionless, τὰ πάθη, ἀπαθής.—See Index of Philosophic Terms.

Chapter 5.

1. Euripides.—Musonius Rufus, the teacher of Epictetus, is reported to have said, “Take the chance of dying nobly when thou canst, lest after a little death indeed come to thee, but a noble death no more.”

1. Euripides.—Musonius Rufus, who taught Epictetus, reportedly said, “Seize the opportunity to die with honor while you can, or you might face a minor death now, but a noble death will never come to you again.”

2. This phrase of the “open door” occurs frequently in Epictetus, usually when, as here, he is telling the average non-philosophic man that it is unmanly to complain of a life which he can at any time relinquish. The philosopher has no need of such exhortation, for he does not complain, and as for death, is content to wait God’s time. But the Stoics taught that the arrival of this time might be indicated by some disaster or affliction which rendered a natural and wholesome life impossible. Self-destruction was in such cases permissible, and is recorded to have been adopted by several leaders of the Stoics, generally when old age had begun to render them a burden to their friends.

2. This phrase about the “open door” comes up often in Epictetus, typically when he tells the average person who isn't into philosophy that it's unmanly to complain about a life they can walk away from at any moment. Philosophers don’t need this kind of encouragement because they don’t complain and are willing to wait for God's timing regarding death. However, the Stoics believed that this timing could be signaled by some disaster or suffering that made a natural and healthy life impossible. In such situations, taking one’s own life was acceptable and is noted to have been chosen by several Stoic leaders, usually when old age started to become a burden to their friends.

3. Nay, thou shalt exist, etc.—This is the sense given by Zeller’s punctuation. Schweighäuser’s text would be rendered, “Thou shalt not exist, but something else will,” etc. Upton changes the text (on his own authority) by transposing an οὐκ. “Thou shalt exist, but as something else, whereof the universe has now no need.”

3. No, you will exist, etc.—This is the meaning indicated by Zeller’s punctuation. Schweighäuser’s text would be interpreted as, “You will not exist, but something else will,” etc. Upton alters the text (on his own authority) by switching an οὐκ. “You will exist, but as something else, of which the universe currently has no need.”

4. This does not appear to have been the law in Epictetus’s time, for he himself was educated while a slave. But it was a common provision in antique states.

4. This doesn’t seem to have been the case during Epictetus’s time, as he was educated while being a slave himself. However, it was a typical practice in ancient societies.

5. The ceremony in manumitting a slave.

5. The ceremony for freeing a slave.

Chapter 6.

1. Chap. VI. i. is a passage from the lost Fifth Book of the Discourses, preserved for us in a rather obscure Latin translation by Aulus Gellius. During a storm at sea, a certain Stoic on board was observed by him to 257 look pale and anxious, though not indeed showing the signs of panic exhibited by the other passengers. Questioned afterwards by Gellius on this apparent feebleness in his professed faith, the Stoic produced the Fifth Book of Epictetus, and read this passage.

1. Chap. VI. i. is a section from the lost Fifth Book of the Discourses, preserved for us in a somewhat obscure Latin translation by Aulus Gellius. During a storm at sea, a certain Stoic on board was noticed by him to look pale and anxious, although he didn't display the panic shown by the other passengers. Later, when Gellius asked about this apparent weakness in his professed beliefs, the Stoic took out the Fifth Book of Epictetus and read this section.

2. The third Earl of Shaftesbury, an enthusiastic student of Epictetus, had this dish of water and ray of light engraved, and placed, with the inscription, πάντα ὑπόληψις—All is Opinion—as an emblem at the front of his Characteristics. The passage, though interesting, is obscure. At one time the “appearances,” φαντασίαι, are compared to the ray of light; at another, the doctrines (literally “arts,” i. e., arts of life taught by philosophy) and virtues. Probably the explanation is to be found in the view of the Stoics that at birth the human soul is a tabula rasa, or blank sheet; all our knowledge coming from without; that is, from the “appearances” which surround us. Moral and philosophic convictions are thus, like all other mental states, the result of external impressions.

2. The third Earl of Shaftesbury, a dedicated student of Epictetus, had this image of a bowl of water and a ray of light engraved, and placed it with the inscription, πάντα ὑπόληψις—All is Opinion—as a symbol at the beginning of his Characteristics. The passage is intriguing but not very clear. At one point, “appearances,” φαντασίαι, are likened to the ray of light; at another, they relate to doctrines (literally “arts,” i.e., the life lessons taught by philosophy) and virtues. The explanation likely lies in the Stoic belief that a human's soul at birth is a tabula rasa, or blank slate; all our knowledge is gained externally, meaning from the “appearances” around us. Moral and philosophical beliefs are, therefore, like all other mental states, the outcome of external influences.

Chapter 7.

1. The school of Plato was continued at Athens under the title of the Academy. In its later days it produced little except logical puzzles.

1. Plato's school continued in Athens under the name of the Academy. In its later years, it mainly produced logical puzzles.

2. “Friend, if indeed, escaping from this war, we were destined thereafter to an ageless and deathless life, then neither would I fight in the van nor set thee in the press of glorious battle. But now, since death in a thousand kinds stands everywhere against us, which no man shall fly from nor elude, we go; either we shall give glory to another, or he to us.”—Sarpedon’s speech, Iliad, xii. 322-8.

2. “My friend, if we were truly meant to escape this war and live forever, I wouldn’t fight in the front lines or throw you into the chaos of battle. But now, since death in countless ways surrounds us and no one can escape or avoid it, we must go; either we will bring glory to someone else, or they will bring it to us.” — Sarpedon’s speech, Iliad, xii. 322-8.

3. General consent.—The well-known philosophic doctrine, that what all men unite in believing must be true, which has so often been made the basis of arguments against Skepticism in various forms.

3. General consent.—The well-known philosophical idea that whatever everyone agrees on must be true, which has frequently been used as a foundation for arguments against Skepticism in different forms.

Chapter 8.

1. See Chap. IV. i.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ See Chapter __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__

2. He drew water by night for his gardens, and studied philosophy in the day.—Diog. Laert. [Upton.]

2. He collected water at night for his gardens and studied philosophy during the day.—Diog. Laert. [Upton.]

3. A most characteristic feature of the whole Stoic school was its treatment of ancient mythology and legend. These things were closely and earnestly studied, with a constant view to the deeper meanings that underlay the vesture of fable, an attitude which contrasts very favorably with Plato’s banishment of the poets from his Republic for “teaching false notions about the Gods.”

3. A key aspect of the entire Stoic school was how it approached ancient mythology and legend. These topics were thoroughly and thoughtfully examined, always aiming to uncover the deeper meanings hidden beneath the surface of the stories. This attitude stands in sharp contrast to Plato’s decision to exile poets from his Republic for “promoting false ideas about the Gods.”

Chapter 9.

1. Gyara, an island in the Ægean, used as a penal settlement.

1. Gyara, an island in the Aegean, served as a prison settlement.

Chapter X.

1. The captain ... the driver—literally, “to him who has knowledge” (of the given art).

1. The captain ... the driver—which means “to the one who has the skills” (in that specific field).

2. Liberator—καρπιστής. The person appointed by law to carry out the ceremony of the manumission of slaves.

2. Liberator—fruits bear. The person legally designated to perform the ceremony for freeing slaves.

Chapter 11.

1. This chapter seems to me to contain a truth expressed so baldly and crudely as to appear a falsehood. The reader’s mind will be fixed upon the truth or falsehood according as he is or is not capable of reading Epictetus with understanding.

1. This chapter seems to me to hold a truth that is stated so bluntly and harshly that it might come off as a lie. Whether the reader sees it as truth or falsehood will depend on their ability to understand Epictetus.

2. This earthen lamp was sold, according to Lucian, at the death of Epictetus for 3,000 drachmæ (about £120).—Adv. Indoct. 13.

2. This clay lamp was sold, according to Lucian, for 3,000 drachmas (around £120) at the time of Epictetus's death.—Adv. Indoct. 13.

Chapter 13.

1. Parodying a verse of Euripides on the stream of Dirce in Bœotia. The Marcian aqueduct brought water to Rome.

1. Parodying a line from Euripides about the river Dirce in Boeotia. The Marcian aqueduct supplied water to Rome.

2. I adopt Upton’s conjecture for the inexplicable ἐν βοὸς κοιλίᾳ.

2. I agree with Upton’s theory about the mysterious ἐν βοὸς κοιλίᾳ.

Chapter 18.

1. An eminent Cynic (also mentioned by Seneca and Tacitus).

1. A famous Cynic (also mentioned by Seneca and Tacitus).

Chapter 25.

1. This is the reading of one of the Christian Paraphrases. The other versions add the words πρὸς ἀλλήλους after ἐξ ὧν ὀυ διαφερόμεθα, giving the sense “from things in which we do not differ from each other.” It is no uncommon thing for all the versions of Epictetus to unite in a manifestly corrupt reading, and though in this case the received text is not an impossible one, I have thought myself justified in following the variant of the Paraphrase.

1. This is the interpretation of one of the Christian Paraphrases. The other versions include the phrase πρὸς ἀλλήλους after ἐξ ὧν ὀυ διαφερόμεθα, which means “from things in which we do not differ from each other.” It’s not uncommon for all the versions of Epictetus to agree on a clearly flawed reading, and while in this case the accepted text isn’t impossible, I believe I’m justified in following the variant of the Paraphrase.

Chapter 27.

1. There is an allusion to this curious feature of the Olympic contests in the Fourth Idyll of Theocritus. Casaubon (Lect. Theocr. ad Idyll. 4) quoted by Schweighäuser, in his note on this passage (Diss. III. xv. 4), shows from Festus Pompeius that there was a statue in the Capitol of a youth bearing a spade after the manner of the Olympic combatants.

1. There’s a reference to this interesting aspect of the Olympic games in the Fourth Idyll of Theocritus. Casaubon (Lect. Theocr. on Idyll. 4), as quoted by Schweighäuser in his note on this passage (Diss. III. xv. 4), indicates from Festus Pompeius that there was a statue in the Capitol of a young man holding a spade like the Olympic competitors.

2. Euphrates, a Stoic philosopher, and contemporary of Epictetus. He was tutor of Pliny, the younger.

2. Euphrates was a Stoic philosopher and a contemporary of Epictetus. He was the tutor of Pliny the Younger.

3. The pentathlos contended in five athletic exercises—viz., running, leaping, throwing the quoit, throwing the javelin, wrestling.

3. The pentathlon consisted of five sports—running, jumping, discus throw, javelin throw, and wrestling.

4. Much of this must refer to the period of probation 260 or discipleship, for Epictetus is clear that the ordinary Stoic (who had not embraced the special mission of Cynicism) was not required to forsake his family, or his affairs, or his duties as a citizen, nor even justified in doing so.

4. A lot of this probably relates to the time of testing 260 or learning, because Epictetus makes it clear that the average Stoic (who hadn’t taken on the unique path of Cynicism) wasn’t expected to give up his family, or his work, or his responsibilities as a citizen, nor was he even allowed to do so.


BOOK III.

Chapter 2.

1. The husk is, of course, the body. If it is maintained that Nature has made the ease of this our only proper pursuit, of course the altruistic, or social instincts have to be rejected and denied.

1. The husk is, of course, the body. If we say that nature has made our comfort the only pursuit worth having, then we have to dismiss and deny our altruistic or social instincts.

2. The text is here almost certainly corrupt. It runs πῶς οὖν ὑπονοητικοί ἐσμεν, οἷς μὴ φυσική ἐστι πρὸς τὰ ἔκγονα φιλοστοργία. All the MSS. agree in ὑπονοητικοί, for which Schweighäuser desires to read προνοητικοί, and Wolf, ἔτι κοινωνικοί. Salmasius declares emphatically for πῶς οὖν ἐπινοεῖς ὅτι κοινωνικοί ἐσμεν, and this, with a slight alteration suggested to me by an eminent living scholar, is the reading I have adopted: Let us suppose that Epictetus said πῶς οὖν ὑπονοεῖς ὅτι κ.ε., and that this was written in the short lines common in Greek MSS.:—

2. The text is almost certainly corrupted here. It says, "How then are we to imply that we do not have a natural affinity for our offspring?" All the manuscripts agree on "imply," but Schweighäuser wants to change it to "anticipate," and Wolf suggests "social." Salmasius strongly supports "So then you think that we are social beings," and this, with a slight modification suggested by a well-known contemporary scholar, is what I’ve chosen to use: Let’s assume Epictetus said "So then you imply that we are...," and that this was written in the short lines typical in Greek manuscripts:—

Πώς σου πάει; Νοητικοί Νεολαίοι

The second line, beginning with the same letter as the third, might easily be dropped by a transcriber, and the next transcriber would certainly change the resulting ὑπονωνικοί to ὑπονοητικοί. The existing reading might give the sense, “How are we, then, suspicious of those (if any there be) to whom Nature has given no affection for their offspring?”

The second line, starting with the same letter as the third, could easily be missed by a transcriber, and the next transcriber would definitely change the resulting ὑπονωνικοί to ὑπονοητικοί. The current reading might suggest, “How are we, then, suspicious of those (if any exist) to whom Nature has given no affection for their offspring?”

3. Outward things—such as making provision for one’s family, serving the State, etc.,—actions which are not directly concerned with our spiritual good.

3. External matters—like taking care of one's family, serving the government, and so on—are actions that don't directly relate to our spiritual well-being.

Chapter 3.

1. Phrygia, the birthplace of Epictetus, was one of the great centers of the wild and fearful cult of Cybele, whose priests gashed and mutilated themselves in the excitement of the orgie.

1. Phrygia, where Epictetus was born, was one of the major centers for the intense and fearsome cult of Cybele, whose priests would cut and injure themselves in the frenzy of the ritual.

2. Philosophy is brought upon the scene, speaking first through the mouth of a Stoic, afterwards through that of an Epicurean, and the practical results of each system are exhibited.

2. Philosophy makes its entrance, starting with the voice of a Stoic and then shifting to that of an Epicurean, showcasing the practical outcomes of each approach.

3. The Athenians, rather than submit to Xerxes, abandoned their city to be plundered, and took to their fleet, the victory at Salamis rewarding their resolve.

3. The Athenians, instead of surrendering to Xerxes, left their city to be looted and took to their ships, with the victory at Salamis rewarding their determination.

Those who died at Thermopylæ were the three hundred Spartans under Leonidas, who held the pass against the Persian host till all were slain. Often as their heroism has been celebrated, perhaps nothing more worthy of their valor has been written than the truly laconic epitaph composed for them by Simonides:

Those who died at Thermopylæ were the three hundred Spartans led by Leonidas, who defended the pass against the Persian army until they were all killed. Despite how often their bravery has been honored, maybe nothing captures their courage better than the straightforward epitaph written for them by Simonides:

"Stranger, the Spartans ordered us to die: "Go, tell them that we lie here."

Chapter 4.

1. The sense of human dignity was strong in Epictetus, and he would have it practically observed in men’s relations with each other. Compare Ch. v. 7. Zeller must have overlooked these Fragments of Epictetus when he asserted (p. 301) that no Stoic philosopher had ever condemned slavery. So far as we know, however, this is the only condemnation of that institution ever uttered by any Pagan thinker. The usual Stoic view was laid down by Chrysippus, who defined the slave very much as Carlyle does, as a “perpetuus mercenarius”—a man “hired for life, from whom work was to be required, a just return for it being accorded (operam exegendam, justa prœbenda)”. This utterance of Epictetus, as of one who knew slavery from within, and certainly was not inclined to exaggerate its discomforts, is noteworthy enough.

1. Epictetus had a strong sense of human dignity and believed it should be applied in people's interactions with one another. See Ch. v. 7. Zeller must have missed these Fragments of Epictetus when he claimed (p. 301) that no Stoic philosopher had ever criticized slavery. To our knowledge, this is the only critique of that institution ever made by any pagan thinker. The typical Stoic perspective was laid out by Chrysippus, who described the slave much like Carlyle does, as a “perpetuus mercenarius”—a man “hired for life, from whom work was to be required, a just return for it being accorded (operam exegendam, justa prœbenda)”. This statement from Epictetus, as someone who experienced slavery firsthand and certainly wouldn’t exaggerate its hardships, is significant enough.

Chapter 5.

1. Administrator, διορθωτής; in Latin, Corrector—a State officer of whom inscriptions, etc., make frequent mention, but of whose functions not much appears to be known beyond what the present chapter of Epictetus reveals.

1. Administrator, corrector; in Latin, Corrector—a state official that inscriptions and other records often refer to, but there's not much known about their duties beyond what this chapter of Epictetus explains.

2. Cassiope was a port of Epirus, not far from Nicopolis, where Epictetus taught. Schw. conjectures that Maximus was sending his son to study philosophy at Nicopolis under Epictetus.

2. Cassiope was a port in Epirus, close to Nicopolis, where Epictetus taught. Schw. speculates that Maximus was sending his son to study philosophy at Nicopolis under Epictetus.

3. “For a correct view of these matters will reduce every movement of preference and avoidance to health of body and tranquillity of soul; for this is the perfection of a happy life.”—Epicurus, Diog. Laert. x. 128. Epictetus’s analysis of the Epicurean theory amounts to this, that the pleasure of the soul is the chief good, but that it is only felt through the body and its conditions.

3. “A proper understanding of these issues will link every choice of liking and disliking to physical health and mental peace; this is the essence of a happy life.”—Epicurus, Diog. Laert. x. 128. Epictetus’s interpretation of the Epicurean theory suggests that the pleasure of the mind is the ultimate good, but it can only be experienced through the body and its state.

4. The overseer of youth.—An officer in certain Greek cities. See Mahaffy’s Greek Life and Thought, ch. xvii., on the organization of the ephebi.

4. The overseer of youth.—An official in some Greek cities. See Mahaffy’s Greek Life and Thought, ch. xvii., on the organization of the ephebi.

5. Aid in works that are according to Nature.—The Greek is—ἐν τοῖς κατὰ φύσιν ἔργοις παρακρατῆ. There is some difference of opinion among commentators as to the meaning of παρακρατῆ. Wolf translates, “hold the chief place” in natural works. Upton, Schw., and Long render it by “keep us constant,” “sustain us,” in such works. I do not see why we should not take the word in its plainest sense—that pleasure should act together with other forces in leading us to do well.

5. Aid in works that align with Nature.—The Greek is—ἐν τοῖς κατὰ φύσιν ἔργοις παρακρατῆ. There is some disagreement among commentators regarding the meaning of παρακρατῆ. Wolf translates it as “hold the chief place” in natural works. Upton, Schw., and Long interpret it as “keep us constant” or “sustain us” in such works. I don’t see why we shouldn't take the word in its most straightforward sense—that pleasure should work alongside other forces in guiding us to do well.

Chapter 7.

1. Zealous for evil things.—Epictetus must mean things which they know to be evil—evil things as evil. It was a Socratic doctrine which we find again alluded to in this chapter, that no evil is ever willingly or wittingly done.

1. Passionate about bad things.—Epictetus must be referring to things that are understood to be bad—bad things as bad. This was a Socratic belief mentioned again in this chapter, that no one ever chooses to do something bad willingly or knowingly.

2. A favorite theme of later Greek and of Roman comedy was the rivalship in love of a father and a son.

2. A common theme in later Greek and Roman comedies was the competition in love between a father and his son.

3. Admetus, husband of Alcestis, being told by an oracle that his wife must die if no one offered himself in her stead, thought to lay the obligation on his father, as being an old man with but few more years to live. The first verse quoted is from the Alcestis of Euripides; the second is not found in any extant version of that play.

3. Admetus, the husband of Alcestis, was informed by an oracle that his wife would die unless someone volunteered to take her place. He considered burdening his father with this, since he was an elderly man with only a few years left to live. The first line cited is from the Alcestis by Euripides; the second line cannot be found in any existing version of that play.

4. Eteocles and Polyneices, sons of Œdipus, quarreled with each other about the inheritance of their father’s kingdom. Eteocles having gained possession of it, Polyneices brought up the famous seven kings, his allies, against Thebes, and fell in battle there by his brother’s hand, whom he also killed. The verses quoted are from the Phœnissæ of Euripides.

4. Eteocles and Polyneices, the sons of Œdipus, fought over their father’s kingdom. Eteocles took control, so Polyneices rallied the legendary seven kings, his allies, to attack Thebes. They clashed in battle, and both brothers ended up killing each other. The lines referenced are from the Phœnissæ by Euripides.

5. Schweighäuser interprets this passage to mean that these men occupy the public places as wild beasts do the mountains, to prey on others. If we might read ὡς τὰ θηρία for ὡς τὰ ὄρη, we should get a less obscure sense, “haunt the wilderness—I should say the public places—like wild beasts.” The passage is clearly corrupt somewhere.

5. Schweighäuser interprets this passage to mean that these men occupy public spaces like wild animals do the mountains, to prey on others. If we could read ὡς τὰ θηρία instead of ὡς τὰ ὄρη, we would get a clearer meaning: “haunt the wilderness—I mean the public spaces—like wild beasts.” The passage is clearly corrupted in some way.

6. Polyneices bribed Eriphyle with the gift of this necklace to persuade her unwilling husband to march with him against Thebes where he died.

6. Polyneices bribed Eriphyle with this necklace to convince her reluctant husband to join him in the attack on Thebes, where he died.

Chapter 8.

1. The allusion is to Odyssey, v. 82-4. “But he was sitting on the beach and weeping, where he was wont; and tormented his spirit with tears and groanings and woes, and wept as he gazed over the barren sea.”

1. The reference is to Odyssey, v. 82-4. “But he was sitting on the beach and crying, like he usually did; and he troubled his mind with tears and groans and sorrows, and cried as he looked out over the empty sea.”

2. Let him pity.—See Bk. I., ch. viii., note 3.

2. Let him show compassion.—See Bk. I., ch. viii., note 3.

Chapter 9.

1. The conflagration.—See Preface for an account of the Stoic Doctrine of the Weltverbrennung.

1. The fire.—See the Preface for an explanation of the Stoic Doctrine of the Weltverbrennung.

2. Long suggests that the words translated “air to air” might be equally well rendered “spirit to spirit” (ὅσον πνευματίου εἰς πνευμάτιον), thus finding a place for the soul in this enumeration of the elements of man. But this metaphysical division of man’s nature into a spiritual part and a material part would have been wholly contrary to Stoic teaching, which admitted no existence that was not material. As a matter of fact, if any of the terms in this enumeration is to be understood as meaning soul or spirit, it will be fire rather than air.

2. Long suggests that the phrase translated “air to air” could also be interpreted as “spirit to spirit” (ὅσον πνευματίου εἰς πνευμάτιον), thereby including the soul in this list of human elements. However, this metaphysical distinction between the spiritual and material aspects of human nature would completely contradict Stoic beliefs, which acknowledged only material existence. In fact, if any of the terms in this list is meant to signify soul or spirit, it would be fire rather than air.

3. Gods and Powers.—θεῶν καὶ Δαιμόνων.

3. Gods and Powers.—of gods and spirits.

Chapter X.

1. To strangle lions or embrace statues.—Hercules did the former, and ostentatious philosophers sometimes did the latter in winter-time, by way of showing their power of endurance.

1. To strangle lions or hug statues.—Hercules did the first, and flashy philosophers sometimes did the second in the winter, to demonstrate their endurance.

2. The stamp of Nero.—I believe there is no other record than this of any rejection of Nero’s coins, and those which have come down to us are of perfectly good quality. He was declared a public enemy by the Senate, and possibly it was decreed at the same time that his coins should be withdrawn from circulation. Dion, quoted by Wise (apud Schweighäuser), reports that this was done in the case of Caligula, after the death of that tyrant.

2. The stamp of Nero.—I think there's no other record of any rejection of Nero’s coins, and the ones we have are all in perfectly good condition. The Senate declared him a public enemy, and it’s possible they also decided at the same time to pull his coins from circulation. Dion, as quoted by Wise (apud Schweighäuser), notes that this happened with Caligula's coins after his death.

3. Lions at home, but in Ephesus foxes.—“A proverb about the Spartans, who were defeated in Asia,” notes the Scholiast on Aristoph. Pac., 1188-90.

3. Lions at home, but in Ephesus, foxes.—“A proverb about the Spartans, who were defeated in Asia,” notes the Scholiast on Aristoph. Pac., 1188-90.


BOOK IV.

Chapter 2.

1. Nor can I move without thy knowledge.—From Homer, Il. x. 279, 280, Odysseus to Athene.

1. I can't act without you knowing.—From Homer, Il. x. 279, 280, Odysseus to Athene.

2. The Genius of each man.—τὸν ἐκάστον Δαίμονα.

2. The Genius of each person.—τὸν ἐκάστον Δαίμονα.

Chapter 3.

1. A way wherein to walk.—Literally, the power of using a way. It seems to me likely that this term, way—ὁδός, here signifies the Stoic philosophy, just as in the early Church it was used to signify Christianity (e. g., Acts xxii. 4, and xix. 9, 23).

1. A way to walk.—Literally, the ability to follow a path. It seems to me that this term, way—ὁδός, here represents Stoic philosophy, just as it was used in the early Church to represent Christianity (e. g., Acts xxii. 4, and xix. 9, 23).

Chapter 4.

1. Nor have any object in themselves.—Readers of Lotze will be reminded of the term Fürsichseinheit, used by him to denote the self-centered quality of true Being. The Greek here is οὐκ ἀυτὰ προηγούμενα, προηγούμενα, being the word used in Bk. I. viii. 13, and Bk. III. v. 5, for the leading objects or obligations of man.

1. Neither do they have any value in themselves.—Readers of Lotze will recall the term Fürsichseinheit, which he used to describe the self-focused nature of genuine Being. The Greek term here is οὐκ ἀυτὰ προηγούμενα, προηγούμενα, a phrase found in Bk. I. viii. 13, and Bk. III. v. 5, referring to the main objects or duties of humans.

2. Would that I had you with me!—In Long’s translation the pronoun you is explained to mean God. I can see no reason for this interpretation. The words are, I think, supposed to be uttered by a disciple to his master: they are such as Epictetus may have heard from many of his own disciples as they left him to take their part in the world of action.

2. I wish I had you here with me!—In Long’s translation, the pronoun you is explained to refer to God. I don’t see any reason for this interpretation. I believe these words are meant to be spoken by a student to his teacher: they are the kind of thing Epictetus may have heard from many of his own students as they went out to engage in the world.

3. Cautious assenti. e., caution in allowing oneself to entertain the impressions of appearances.

3. Cautious agreementi. e., being careful to let oneself consider the impressions of appearances.

Chapter 5.

1. The strong and growing yearning for some direct, personal revelation of God, some supernatural manifestation of His existence and care for men, is noted by Zeller as a special trait of Hellenistic times. Such a revelation must have been longed for by many as the only satisfying answer to the destructive logic of the Pyrrhonists, and men’s minds were also of course led that way by the insistence of the Stoic thinkers upon the communion of the individual with God, as the most important of all possible relations. Hence the growth of many wild and orgiastic cults at this epoch—all 266 based on the state of ecstasy connected with their rites, which was ascribed to supernatural influence. With the Stoics this movement took the comparatively sober shape of attention to the established system of oracular divination. Zeller, however, shows that some Stoics were disposed to rationalize the revelations of the oracles by supposing a certain sympathy between the mind of the seer and the future events which led to the unconscious selection of means of divination which would exhibit the proper signs.—(Z. 339, 340.) Epictetus evidently thought more of God’s revelation in the conscience than any other.

1. The strong and growing desire for a direct, personal revelation of God, some supernatural sign of His existence and care for humanity, is noted by Zeller as a distinctive feature of Hellenistic times. Many must have longed for such a revelation as the only real answer to the destructive reasoning of the Pyrrhonists, and people's thoughts were also influenced by the Stoic philosophers' emphasis on the individual's connection with God as the most significant relationship of all. This led to the rise of various wild and ecstatic cults during this period—all based on the state of ecstasy associated with their rituals, which were believed to be driven by supernatural forces. Among the Stoics, this movement took a more restrained form, focusing on the established practice of oracular divination. However, Zeller points out that some Stoics tended to rationalize the insights of the oracles by proposing that there was a certain affinity between the mind of the seer and the future events, which resulted in an unconscious selection of divination methods that revealed the right signs.—(Z. 339, 340.) Epictetus clearly placed greater importance on God's revelation in the conscience than on any other form.

2. The story is told by Simplicius in his commentary on this chapter. Two friends, journeying together to inquire of the oracle at Delphi, were set upon by robbers; one of them resisted, and was murdered, the other either fled or made no effort on his companion’s behalf. Arriving at the temple of Apollo, he was greeted with the following deliverance of the oracle:—

2. The story is recounted by Simplicius in his commentary on this chapter. Two friends, traveling together to consult the oracle at Delphi, were attacked by robbers; one of them fought back and was killed, while the other either ran away or didn’t try to help his friend. When he reached the temple of Apollo, he received the following message from the oracle:—

"You saw your friend die completely unprotected—" "Run away from Phœbus’ temple if you’re guilty of that sin."


BOOK V.

Chapter 1.

1. Simplicius explains that the oath was to be refused, because to call God to witness in any merely personal and earthly interest implies a want of reverence towards Him; but that if there were a question of pledging one’s faith on behalf of friends, or parents, or country, it was not improper to add the confirmation of an oath.

1. Simplicius explains that the oath should be refused because calling on God as a witness for personal or worldly matters shows a lack of respect toward Him. However, if it's about committing your faith for friends, family, or country, it's acceptable to support it with an oath.

2. Upton quotes allusions to these recitations from Juvenal, Martial, and Pliny. Authors would read their own works and invite crowds of flatterers to attend. Epict. Diss. iii. 23. (Schweighäuser) is a scornful diatribe against the pretentious people who held forth 267 on these occasions, and the people who assembled to hear and applaud them. He contrasts with fashionable reciters and lecturers his own master, Rufus. “Rufus was wont to say, I speak to no purpose, if ye have time to praise me. And, verily, he spoke in such a way that every man who sat there thought that some one had accused him to Rufus, he so handled all that was going on, he so set before each man’s eyes his faults.”

2. Upton refers to these readings by quoting Juvenal, Martial, and Pliny. Authors would read their own works and invite crowds of admirers to listen. Epict. Diss. iii. 23. (Schweighäuser) is a scornful critique of the pretentious people who spoke at these events and the audience that gathered to hear and applaud them. He contrasts fashionable speakers with his own mentor, Rufus. “Rufus used to say, I’m wasting my time if you have time to praise me. And truly, he spoke in a way that made everyone present feel like someone had pointed out their shortcomings to Rufus, as he skillfully highlighted the faults of each individual.”

3. Into vulgarity—εἰς ἰδιωτισμόν.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Into vulgarity—into idiocy.

Chapter 2.

1. The sophism, or puzzle, called the Liar, ran thus:—A liar says he lies: if it is true, he is no liar; and if he lies, he is speaking truth. The Quiescent (ὁ ἡσυχάζων) was an invention attributed by Cicero to Chrysippus (Acad. ii. 29). When asked of a gradually-increasing number of things to say when they ceased to be few and became many, he was wont to cease replying, or be “quiescent,” shortly before the limit was reached—a device which we have some difficulty in regarding as a fair example of Chrysippus’s contributions to the science of logic. For the master sophism see Bk. II. chap. i., note 1.

1. The puzzle known as the Liar goes like this: A liar claims he is lying; if that's true, then he isn't a liar, and if he is lying, he's actually telling the truth. The Quiescent (ὁ ἡσυχάζων) was a concept credited to Chrysippus by Cicero (Acad. ii. 29). When asked to list an increasing number of items, he would usually stop responding just before the number transitioned from few to many—a tactic that’s hard to see as a solid example of Chrysippus's contributions to logic. For the main sophism, see Bk. II. chap. i., note 1.

2. Plato, Laws, ix.:—“When any of such opinions visit thee, go to the purifying sacrifices, go and pray in the temples of the protecting Gods, go to the society of men whom thou hast heard of as good; and now hear from others, now say for thine own part, that it behooves every man to hold in regard the things that are honorable and righteous. But from the company of evil men, fly without a look behind. And if in doing these things thy disease give ground, well; but if not, hold death the better choice, and depart from life.”

2. Plato, Laws, ix.:—“When you have such thoughts, go make purifying sacrifices, pray in the temples of the protective Gods, and be with those you know are good. Listen to what others say, and say yourself that everyone should value what is honorable and just. But steer clear of evil company; don't look back. If these actions help you feel better, great; but if not, consider death as the better option and leave this life.”

3. The true athlete.—Literally, ascetic, ἀσκητής; i. e., practicer.

3. The true athlete.—Literally, one who is disciplined, ἀσκητής; i. e., someone who practices.

4. The Dioscuri, or Twins, Castor and Pollux, were the patron deities of sailors.

4. The Dioscuri, or Twins, Castor and Pollux, were the guardian gods of sailors.

Chapter 6.

1. If viewed disjunctively.—That is, if we say, It is day, or, It is night. This is a difficult chapter, and full of corruptions. The feast alluded to is, doubtless, the feast of life, where the Gods are the hosts.

1. If viewed separately.—That is, if we say, It is day, or, It is night. This is a challenging chapter, and full of errors. The celebration mentioned is certainly the celebration of life, where the Gods are the hosts.

Chapter 7.

1. Winter training.—Such as the Roman troops underwent when in winter-quarters. They were accustomed to exercise themselves with arms of double the normal weight, and prepare themselves by marching, running, leaping, etc., for active service.

1. Winter training.—This is what the Roman troops practiced while in winter camps. They would train with weapons that weighed double the usual amount and get ready for active duty by marching, running, jumping, and other exercises.

Chapter 12.

1 1. The Pancratium was a contest in which boxing and wrestling were both allowable. For the Pentathlon, see Bk. II. chap, xvii., note 3.

1 1. The Pancratium was a competition where both boxing and wrestling were permitted. For the Pentathlon, see Bk. II. chap. xvii., note 3.

Chapter 16.

1. This means, apparently, that the judgment has no right to do more than endorse the deliverances of the perceptive faculty. If a man commits any error, he does it under the conviction that it is in some way for his profit or satisfaction; that is, that there is something of the nature of the Good in it. He may be mistaken in this; but so long as he does not know where Good and Evil really lie, he can do no other than he does. The true course, then, for the philosopher is not to condemn him for his actions, but to show him the fundamental error from which they proceed. The expression, “assent,” συγκατατίθεσθαι, is that used by Epictetus in II. vi., etc., where he speaks of the mind as being imposed on, or taken captive, by the outward shows of things.

1. This suggests that judgment should only validate what the mind perceives. When someone makes a mistake, they do so believing it somehow benefits them or brings satisfaction, meaning they see something good in it. They might be wrong about this, but as long as they're unaware of what Good and Evil truly are, they can only act as they do. Therefore, the philosopher's role is not to criticize their actions but to reveal the basic misunderstanding behind them. The term "assent," συγκατατίθεσθαι, is used by Epictetus in II. vi., among other places, where he describes the mind being influenced or captured by external appearances.

Chapter XX.

1. The Greek is Ἐπειδὴ λόγος ἐστὶν ὁ διαρθρῶν καὶ ἐξεργαζόμενος τὰ λοιπά. διαρθρόω means, literally, to fashion with joints, hence constitute organically, with interdependence of parts. Long translates “analyze.”

1. The Greek is Ἐπειδὴ λόγος ἐστὶν ὁ διαρθρῶν καὶ ἐξεργαζόμενος τὰ λοιπά. διαρθρόω means, literally, to shape with joints, so to create something organically, with the parts relying on each other. Long translates it as “analyze.”

2. Modius.—A measure of about two gallons.

2. Modius.—A measurement of roughly two gallons.

3. Antisthenes, about 400 b. c., founder of the Cynic school, which was established by him in the gymnasium called the Cynosarges (hence the name). As a Cynic, his authority would, of course, be respected by the hearers of Epictetus. This investigation of terms, or names, is, indeed, the beginning of philosophy and the guide to truth in any sphere, but perhaps not every one is competent to undertake it. There must be a real and not merely a formal appreciation of the contents of each term. A primrose is one thing to Peter Bell and another to Wordsworth. The term, let us say, Duty, is one thing to a Herbert Spencer and another to a Kant.

3. Antisthenes, around 400 b. c., was the founder of the Cynic school, which he established in the gymnasium called the Cynosarges (hence the name). As a Cynic, his authority was certainly respected by the listeners of Epictetus. This exploration of terms or names is, in fact, the starting point of philosophy and a guide to truth in any area, but maybe not everyone is qualified to tackle it. There has to be a genuine, not just superficial, understanding of the meaning of each term. A primrose means one thing to Peter Bell and something different to Wordsworth. The term, let’s say, Duty means one thing to Herbert Spencer and another to Kant.

Chapter 22.

1. “My friends, fly all culture,” is an injunction reported of Epicurus (Diog. L. x. 6). However, neglect of form in literary style was a characteristic of philosophic writers of the Hellenistic period, which was by no means confined to the Epicureans.

1. “My friends, reject all culture,” is a directive attributed to Epicurus (Diog. L. x. 6). However, a lack of attention to literary style was typical among philosophical writers of the Hellenistic period, not just among the Epicureans.

2. This passage is corrupt. I follow the reading adopted by Schweighäuser (after Wolf); but it may be noted that Schweighäuser’s translation follows another reading than that which he adopts in his text, viz.—κινουμένου (being moved), instead of τεινομένου (being strained). The original, in all versions, is γινομένου, which makes no sense at all.—See Preface, xxiii.

2. This passage is unclear. I follow the version chosen by Schweighäuser (after Wolf); however, it's worth mentioning that Schweighäuser’s translation uses a different reading than the one he presents in his text, specifically—κινουμένου (being moved), instead of τεινομένου (being strained). The original, in all versions, is γινομένου, which makes no sense whatsoever.—See Preface, xxiii.

3. The writings enumerated are, of course, works of Epicurus. When dying, he wrote in a letter to a friend (Diog. L. x. 22) that he was spending a happy day, and his last.

3. The listed writings are, of course, the works of Epicurus. As he was dying, he wrote in a letter to a friend (Diog. L. x. 22) that he was having a happy day, which was also his last.

4. Stoic ἀπάθεια was anything but insensibility. Chrysippus held that many things in the Kosmos were created for their beauty alone.—Zeller, 171.

4. Stoic apatheia was far from being the same as insensitivity. Chrysippus believed that many things in the universe were made solely for their beauty.—Zeller, 171.

5. There is another short chapter on the arts of ratiocination and expression (I. viii. Schw.), which glances at the subject from a somewhat different point of view from that taken in the chapter which I have given. There Epictetus dwells chiefly on the danger that weak spirits should lose themselves in the fascination of these arts: “For, in general, in every faculty acquired by the uninstructed and feeble there is danger lest they be elated and puffed up through it. For how could one contrive to persuade a young man who excels in such things that he must not be an appendage to them, but make them an appendage to him?”

5. There’s another short chapter about the skills of reasoning and communication (I. viii. Schw.), which looks at the topic from a slightly different perspective than the one I provided. There, Epictetus focuses primarily on the risk that those who are weak-minded might get lost in the allure of these skills: “In general, with every skill learned by the untrained and weak, there’s a danger of them becoming arrogant and full of themselves because of it. How can you convince a young person who excels in these areas that they shouldn't just cling to them, but instead make them serve their own purpose?”

Chapter 26.

1. The first of these quotations is from the Stoic Cleanthes, the second from a lost play of Euripides; in the third Epictetus has joined together two sayings of Socrates, one from the Crito and one from the Apologia. Anytus and Meletus were the principal accusers of Socrates in the trial which ended in his sentence to death.

1. The first quote is from the Stoic Cleanthes, the second is from a lost play by Euripides; in the third, Epictetus combines two sayings from Socrates—one from the Crito and one from the Apologia. Anytus and Meletus were the main accusers of Socrates during the trial that resulted in his death sentence.


NOTES ON PRINCIPAL PHILOSOPHIC TERMS USED BY EPICTETUS.

[I give under this head only those terms the exact force of which may not be apparent to the reader in a mere translation.]

[I only provide under this section those terms whose full meaning may not be clear to the reader in a simple translation.]

Αἰδήμων.—Pious, reverent, modest. The substantive is αἰδώς, the German Ehrfurcht (Wilhelm Meister, Wanderjahre, Bk. II. ch. ii.), a virtue in high regard with Epictetus, who generally mentions it in connection with that of “faithfulness,” πίστις. In Wordsworth’s poem, “My heart leaps up when I behold a rainbow in the sky,” the “natural piety” which he prays may abide with him in his old age seems to be just that moral sensitiveness or αἰδώς which passes into reverence and worship in the presence of certain things, and into shame and dread in that of others.

Αιδήμων.—Devout, respectful, humble. The noun is αἰδώς, akin to the German Ehrfurcht (Wilhelm Meister, Wanderjahre, Bk. II. ch. ii.), a virtue highly valued by Epictetus, who usually discusses it alongside "faithfulness," πίστις. In Wordsworth’s poem, “My heart leaps up when I behold a rainbow in the sky,” the “natural piety” he wishes to retain in his old age seems to capture that moral sensitivity or αἰδός that transitions into reverence and worship in the face of certain experiences, and into shame and fear in the face of others.

Ἀπάθεια.—Peace—that is, peace from passion, πάθη. Πάθος was any affection of the mind causing joy or grief. As it appears from Bk. II. iii. I., ἀπάθεια is not, in Epictetus, the state of absolute freedom from these passions, but that of being able to master them so that they shall not overwhelm the inner man.

Ἀπάθεια.—Peace—that is, peace from passion, πάθη. Πάθος was any feeling of the mind that caused joy or sadness. As it appears from Bk. II. iii. I., ἀπάθεια is not, in Epictetus, the state of complete freedom from these passions, but the ability to control them so that they do not overwhelm our inner selves.

Διαρθρωτικός.—That which organizes, constitutes organically, forms into a system. From ἄρθρον, a joint. The word “analyze,” by which Long translates διαρθροῦν, seems to me wanting in the formative sense expressed by the original.

Διαρθρωτικός.—That which organizes, makes up organically, forms into a system. From ἄρθρον, a joint. The word “analyze,” which Long uses to translate διαρθροῦν, seems to me to lack the formative sense expressed by the original.

Δόγμα.—An opinion, that which seems (δοκεῖν) true; generally in the special sense of a philosophic dogma.

Δόγμα.—An opinion, that which seems (δοκεῖν) true; generally in the specific sense of a philosophical doctrine.

Ἐυροεῖν.—To prosper; literally, to flow freely, εὔροια, prosperity. A common Stoic phrase for a happy life.

Ἐυροεῖν.—To prosper; literally, to flow freely, εὔροια, prosperity. A common Stoic phrase for a happy life.

Εὐσέβεια.—Religion, piety. σέβομαι—“to feel awe or fear before God and man, especially when about to do something disgraceful” (Liddell and Scott); to worship, respect, reverence.

Εὐσέβεια.—Religion, piety. σέβομαι—“to feel awe or fear before God and man, especially when about to do something disgraceful” (Liddell and Scott); to worship, respect, reverence.

Ἡγεμονικόν (τό).—The Ruling Faculty—that in a man which chooses, determines, takes cognizance of good and evil, and sways the inferior faculties (δυνάμεις, powers) to its will. Lotze notes this hegemonic quality in the human soul as that which distinguishes it from the bundle of sensations into which the Association Philosophy would resolve it.

The Ruling Faculty—the part of a person that makes choices, decides, recognizes good and evil, and influences the lesser powers to follow its lead. Lotze highlights this hegemonic aspect of the human soul as what sets it apart from the collection of sensations that the Association Philosophy would reduce it to.

θαυμάζειν.—To admire, be dazzled with admiration by, to worship, to be taken up with a thing so as to lose the power of cool judgment. A frequent word in Epictetus, the sense of which is precisely rendered in Hor. Sat. I, 4, 28, “Hunc capit argenti splendor, stupet Albius ære.”

θαυμάζειν.—To admire, to be dazzled with admiration, to worship, to be so absorbed in something that you lose the ability to think clearly. This is a common word in Epictetus, and its meaning is accurately captured in Hor. Sat. I, 4, 28, “Hunc capit argenti splendor, stupet Albius ære.”

Ἰδιώτης.—One of the vulgar, an unlettered person; in Epictetus, one uninstructed in philosophy. Originally the word meant one who remained in private life, not filling any public office, or taking part in State affairs. A man might be an ἰδιώτης, or “layman,” with respect to any branch of science or art.

Ἰδιώτης.—A common person, someone who is uneducated; in Epictetus, this refers to someone who has not learned philosophy. Originally, the term meant a person who stayed out of public life, not holding any public position or getting involved in government matters. A person could be an ἰδιώτης, or “layman,” in relation to any field of study or art.

Καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός.—The good and wise man—literally, beautiful and good. A standing phrase to denote the perfection of human character. καλὸς is a word sometimes difficult to render. Curtius connects it etymologically with Sanscrit, kalyas; Gothic, hails=healthy.

Καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός.—The good and wise man—literally, beautiful and good. A common phrase to indicate the ideal of human character. καλὸς is a term that can be challenging to translate. Curtius links it etymologically to Sanskrit, kalyas; Gothic, hails=healthy.

Οἴησις.—“Conceit”—defined by Cicero as “Opinatio”—intellectual self-sufficiency, the supposing one’s self to know something when one does not. “The first business 273 of a philosopher,” says Epictetus, “is to cast away oἴησις, for it is impossible that one can begin to learn the things that he thinks he knows” (Diss. II. xvii. 1.) He is not, in short, to be “wise in his own conceit.”

Οἴησις.—“Conceit”—defined by Cicero as “Opinatio”—intellectual self-sufficiency, believing one knows something when one does not. “The first task of a philosopher,” says Epictetus, “is to get rid of οἴησις, because it’s impossible to start learning the things one thinks he knows” (Diss. II. xvii. 1.) In short, one should not be “wise in his own opinion.”

ὄρεξις, ἔκκλισις, ὁρμή, ἀφορμή.—Pursuit, avoidance, desire, aversion. According to Simplicius (Comment. Ench. i.), ὄρεξις and ἔκκλισις were used by the Stoics to express the counterparts in outward action of the mental affections, ὁρμὴ and ἀφορμή, and were regarded as consequent upon the latter.

ὄρεξις, ἔκκλισις, ὁρμή, ἀφορμή.—Pursuit, avoidance, desire, aversion. According to Simplicius (Comment. Ench. i.), ὄρεξις and ἔκκλισις were used by the Stoics to express the counterparts in outward action of the mental affections, ὁρμὴ and ἀφορμή, and were regarded as consequent upon the latter.

προαίρεσις.—The Will; but as used in Epictetus, this word implies much more than the mere faculty of volition. Literally, it means a choosing of one thing before another; in Epictetus, the power of deliberately resolving or purposing, the exercise of the reflective faculty being implied. It is hardly to be distinguished from τὸ ἡγεμονικόν, q. v.

προαίρεσις.—The Will; but in Epictetus, this term means much more than just the ability to make choices. Literally, it refers to choosing one thing over another; in Epictetus, it represents the power to intentionally decide or plan, with the use of reflective thinking being implied. It's almost indistinguishable from τὸ ἡγεμονικόν, q. v.

προλήψεις.—“Natural Conceptions.” See Preface, xxviii., xxix. The “primary truths” of Lord Herbert of Cherbury.

προλήψεις.—“Natural Conceptions.” See Preface, xxviii., xxix. The “primary truths” of Lord Herbert of Cherbury.

Συγκατατίθεσθαι.—To assent to or acquiesce in anything, to ratify by the judgment the emotions produced by external things or events, such as the sense of dread, or pleasure, or reprobation, which they arouse in us. To be on one’s guard against the hasty yielding of this assent is one of Epictetus’s main injunctions to the aspirant in philosophy.

Συγκατατίθεσθαι.—To agree or go along with something, to confirm through our judgment the feelings caused by outside things or events, like feelings of fear, pleasure, or disapproval, that they provoke in us. Being cautious about quickly giving this agreement is one of Epictetus’s key advice to those pursuing philosophy.

Ταράσσεσθαι.—To be troubled; ἀ-ταραξία, tranquillity. Ταράσσειν is primarily to stir up, confuse, throw into disorder.

Ταράσσεσθαι.—To be troubled; ἀ-ταραξία, tranquillity. Ταράσσειν is primarily to stir up, confuse, throw into disorder.

φαντασία.—An appearance; with the Stoics, any mental impression as received by the perceptive faculty before the Reason has pronounced upon it, a bare perception.

φαντασία.—An appearance; for the Stoics, any mental impression received by the sensory faculty before Reason has evaluated it, a simple perception.


INDEX OF REFERENCES.

[The references in the right-hand column are to the books, chapters, and verses of the Dissertations, to the chapters of the Encheiridion, and to the Fragments, in Schweighäuser’s edition of Epictetus.]

[The references in the right-hand column are to the books, chapters, and verses of the Dissertations, to the chapters of the Encheiridion, and to the Fragments, in Schweighäuser’s edition of Epictetus.]

BOOK I.
Chap. I. 1 Frag. III.
Chap. I. 2-5 Diss. II. xi. 1-25.
Chap. II. Diss. I. xxii. 1-16.
Chap. III. Diss. I. i. 1-17.
Chap. IV. 1 Diss. III. iii. 1-4.
Chap. IV. 2 Diss. I. xxix. 1-4 to λάβε
Chap. IV. 3 Diss. I. xxv. 1-6.
Chap. V. Ench. I.
Chap. VI. Diss. II. xiv.
Chap. VII. 1, 2 Ench. II.
Chap. VII. 3 Diss. I. xv. 7, 8.
Chap. VII. 4-6 Diss. II. ix. 1-12.
Chap. VII. 7 Frag. LXXII.
Chap. VII. 8 Diss. III. xiii. 20-23.
Chap. VIII. Diss. III. xxii.
BOOK II.
Chap. I. Diss. II. xix.
Chap. II. 1 Frag. LXIX.
Chap. II. 2, 3 Diss. II. v. 1-9.
Chap. II. 4 Diss. II. xvi. 15.
Chap. II. 5, 6 Diss. II. vi. 9-19.
Chap. II. 7, 8 Diss. II. v. 10-20.
276 Chap. III. 1, 2 Ench. III., IV.
Chap. III. 3 Diss. III. xix.
Chap. III. 4, 5 Ench. V., VI.
Chap. IV. 1, 2 Diss. III. ii. 1-10.
Chap. V. 1-3 Diss. II. i. 1-20.
Chap. V. 4 Diss. III. xxiv. 94.
Chap. V. 5 Diss. II. i. 21-29.
Chap. VI. 1 Frag. CLXXX.
Chap. VI. 2 Diss. III. iii. 20-22.
Chap. VII. 1-4 Diss. I. xxvii.
Chap. VIII. 1 Diss. I. ix. 1-8.
Chap. VIII. 2-6 Diss. III. xxvi. 1-36.
Chap. IX. 1 Diss. I. ix. 10-18.
Chap. IX. 2 Diss. I. xxv. 14-20.
Chap. IX. 3 Diss. I. xxix. 29.
Chap. X. 1-4 Diss. I. xix. 1-17.
Chap. X. 5-6 Diss. IV. vii. 12-18.
Chap. X. 7 Diss. I. xviii. 17.
Chap. X. 8 Diss. IV. vii. 19-24.
Chap. XI. Diss. I. xviii. 1-16.
Chap. XII. Ench. VII.
Chap. XIII. 1, 2 Ench. VIII.-IX.
Chap. XIII. 3-6 Diss. II. xvi. 24-47.
Chap. XIV. Ench. X.
Chap. XV. Ench. XI.
Chap. XVI. Ench. XII.
Chap. XVII. Ench. XIII.
Chap. XVIII. 1, 2 Ench. XIV.
Chap. XVIII. 3 Diss. I. xxv. 22-25.
Chap. XVIII. 4 Ench. XV.
Chap. XIX. Ench. XVI.
Chap. XX. 1 Ench. XVII.
Chap. XX. 2 Diss. IV. x. 9-17.
Chap. XXI. Ench. XVIII.-XXI.
Chap. XXII. Ench. XXII.-XXIII.
Chap. XXIII. Ench. XXIV.
Chap. XXIV. Ench. XXV.
Chap. XXV. Ench. XXVI., XXVII.
Chap. XXVI. Ench. XXVIII.
Chap. XXVII. Ench. XXIX.
277 BOOK III.
Chap. I. Ench. XXX.
Chap. II. 1, 2 Diss. I. xxiii.
Chap. II. 3-7 Diss. II. v. 24-30.
Chap. III. 1-9 Diss. II. xx. 1-27.
Chap. IV. 1 Diss. I. xiii.
Chap. IV. 2, 3 Frag. XLIII., XLIV.
Chap. V. Diss. III. vii.
Chap. VI. 1 Frag. LXXXII.
Chap. VI. 2 Frag. XLV.
Chap. VI. 3 Frag. LXVII.
Chap. VII Diss. II. xxii.
Chap. VIII. 1-10 Diss. III. xxiv. 1-49.
Chap. VIII. 11 Diss. III. xxiv. 58-63.
Chap. VIII. 12 Diss. III. xxiv. 88-93.
Chap. IX. 1, 2 Diss. III. xiii. 1-17.
Chap. IX. 3 Frag. CLXXVI.
Chap. IX. 4 Diss. III. xiii. 18, 19.
Chap. X. 1 Frag. LXX.
Chap. X. 2 Diss. IV. v. 1-4.
Chap. X. 3-5 Diss. IV. v. 8-21.
Chap. X. 6 Diss. IV. v. 30-32.
Chap. X. 7 Diss. IV. v. { 33 to ἀγνώμονος.
Diss. IV. v. { 35-37.
BOOK IV.
Chap. I. Ench. XXXI.
Chap. II. 1, 2 Diss. I. xii. 1-7.
Chap. II. 3, 4 Diss. I. xiv. 1-17.
Chap. III. Diss. I. xvi.
Chap. IV. 1, 2 Diss. II. viii. 1-8.
Chap. IV. 3 Diss. I. vi. 13 from ἄλλο—22.
Chap. IV. 4-8 Diss. II. viii. 9-29.
Chap. V. Ench. XXXII.
BOOK V.
Chap. I. 1-5 Ench. XXXIII. 1-6,
Chap. I. 6 Diss. III. xvi. 5-9.
Chap. I. 7-16 Ench. XXXIII. 7-16.
278 Chap. II. 1-4 Diss. II., xviii. 1-21 to ἀποθανόντων
Chap. II. 5, 6 Diss. II. xviii. 23-32.
Chap. II. 7 Diss. IV. xii. 19-21.
Chap. III. 1, 2 Diss. II. xii. 1-4.
Chap. III. 3, 4 Diss. II. xii. 17-25.
Chap. IV. Ench. XXXIV.
Chap. V. Ench. XXXV.
Chap. VI. Ench. XXXVI.
Chap. VII. 1 Ench. XXXVII.
Chap. VII. 2 Diss. I. ii. 30-32.
Chap. VIII. Ench. XXXVIII.
Chap. IX. Ench. XXXIX.
Chap. X. Ench. XL.
Chap. XI. Ench. XLI.
Chap. XII. 1 Diss. III. i. 1-9.
Chap. XII. 2 Diss. III. i. 40-44.
Chap. XII. 3, 4 Diss. IV. xi. 22-29.
Chap. XII. 5 Diss. IV. xi. 35, 36.
Chap. XIII. Ench. XLII.
Chap. XIV. Ench. XLIII.
Chap. XV. Ench. XLIV.
Chap. XVI. 1, 2 Ench. XLV.
Chap. XVI. 3 Diss. 1. xxviii. 1-9.
Chap. XVI. 4 Diss. 1. xxviii. 11-25
Chap. XVII. Ench. XLVI.
Chap. XVIII. Ench. XLVII.
Chap. XIX. Ench. XLVIII.
Chap. XX. 1 Diss. I. xvii. 1, 2.
Chap. XX. 2-4 Diss. I. xvii. 4-12.
Chap. XXI. Ench. XLIX.
Chap. XXII. 1, 2 Diss. II. xxiii. 1-10.
Chap. XXII. 3-7 Diss. II. xxiii. 20-47.
Chap. XXIII. Diss. II. xxiii. Ench. L.
Chap. XXIV. Diss. II. xxiii. Ench. LI.
Chap. XXV. Diss. II. xxiii. Ench. LII.
Chap. XXVI. Ench. LIII.



        
        
    
Download ePUB

If you like this ebook, consider a donation!