4.1

He is free who lives as he wishes to live;1 who is neither subject to compulsion nor to hindrance, nor to force; whose movements to action (ὁρμαί) are not impeded, whose desires attain their purpose, and who does not fall into that which he would avoid (ἐκκλίσεις ἀπερίπτωτοι). Who then chooses to live in error? No man. Who chooses to live deceived, liable to mistake,2 unjust, unrestrained, discontented, mean? No man. Not one then of the bad lives as he wishes; nor is he then free. And who chooses to live in sorrow, fear, envy, pity, desiring and failing in his desires, attempting to avoid something and falling into it? Not one. Do we then find any of the bad free from sorrow, free from fear, who does not fall into that which he would avoid, and does not obtain that which he wishes? Not one; nor then do we find any bad man free.3

If then a man who has been twice consul should hear this, if you add, “But you are a wise man; this is nothing to you,” he will pardon you. But if you tell him the truth, and say, “You differ not at all from those who have been thrice sold as to being yourself not a slave,” what else ought you to expect than blows? For he says, “What, I a slave, I whose father was free, whose mother was free? I whom no man can purchase? I am also of senatorial rank, and a friend of Caesar, and I have been a consul, and I own many slaves.”⁠—In the first place, most excellent senatorial man, perhaps your father also was a slave in the same kind of servitude, and your mother, and your grandfather, and all your ancestors in an ascending series. But even if they were as free as it is possible, what is this to you? What if they were of a noble nature, and you of a mean nature; if they were fearless, and you a coward; if they had the power of self-restraint, and you are not able to exercise it.

“And what,” you may say, “has this to do with being a slave?” Does it seem to you to be nothing to do a thing unwillingly, with compulsion, with groans, has this nothing to do with being a slave? “It is something,” you say: “but who is able to compel me, except the lord of all, Caesar?” Then even you yourself have admitted that you have one master. But that he is the common master of all, as you say, let not this console you at all: but know that you are a slave in a great family. So also the people of Nicopolis are used to exclaim, “By the fortune of Caesar,4 we are free.”

However, if you please, let us not speak of Caesar at present. But tell me this: did you never love any person, a young girl, or slave, or free? “What then is this with respect to being a slave or free?” Were you never commanded by the person beloved to do something which you did not wish to do? have you never flattered your little slave? have you never kissed her feet? And yet if any man compelled you to kiss Caesar’s feet, you would think it an insult and excessive tyranny. What else then is slavery? Did you never go out by night to some place whither you did not wish to go, did you not expend that you did not wish to expend, did you not utter words with sighs and groans, did you not submit to abuse and to be excluded?5 But if you are ashamed to confess your own acts, see what Thrasonides6 says and does, who having seen so much military service as perhaps not even you have, first of all went out by night, when Geta (a slave) does not venture out, but if he were compelled by his master would have cried out much and would have gone out lamenting his bitter slavery. Next, what does Thrasonides say? “A worthless girl has enslaved me, me whom no enemy ever did.” Unhappy man, who are the slave even of a girl, and a worthless girl. Why then do you still call yourself free? and why do you talk of your service in the army? Then he calls for a sword and is angry with him who out of kindness refuses it; and he sends presents to her who hates him, and entreats and weeps, and on the other hand having had a little success he is elated. But even then how? was he free enough neither to desire nor to fear?

Now consider in the case of animals, how we employ the notion of liberty. Men keep tame lions shut up, and feed them, and some take them about; and who will say that this lion is free?7 Is it not the fact that the more he lives at his ease, so much the more he is in a slavish condition? and who if he had perception and reason would wish to be one of these lions? Well, these birds when they are caught and are kept shut up, how much do they suffer in their attempts to escape?8 and some of them die of hunger rather than submit to such a kind of life. And as many of them as live, hardly live and with suffering pine away; and if they ever find any opening, they make their escape. So much do they desire their natural liberty, and to be independent and free from hindrance. And what harm is there to you in this? What do you say? I am formed by nature to fly where I choose, to live in the open air, to sing when I choose: you deprive me of all this, and say, what harm is it to you? For this reason we shall say that those animals only are free which cannot endure capture, but as soon as they are caught escape from captivity by death. So Diogenes also somewhere says that there is only one way to freedom, and that is to die content: and he writes to the Persian king. “You cannot enslave the Athenian state any more than you can enslave fishes.” How is that? cannot I catch them? “If you catch them,” says Diogenes, “they will immediately leave you, as fishes do; for if you catch a fish, it dies; and if these men that are caught shall die, of what use to you is the preparation for war?” These are the words of a free man who had carefully examined the thing, and, as was natural, had discovered it. But if you look for it in a different place from where it is, what wonder if you never find it?

The slave wishes to be set free immediately. Why? Do you think that he wishes to pay money to the collectors of twentieths?9 No; but because he imagines that hitherto, through not having obtained this, he is hindered and unfortunate. If I shall be set free, immediately it is all happiness, I care for no man, I speak to all as an equal and like to them, I go where I choose, I come from any place I choose, and go where I choose. Then he is set free; and forthwith having no place where he can eat, he looks for some man to flatter, someone with whom he shall sup: then he either works with his body and endures the most dreadful things;10 and if he can obtain a manger, he falls into a slavery much worse than his former slavery; or even if he is become rich, being a man without any knowledge of what is good, he loves some little girl, and in his unhappiness laments and desires to be a slave again. He says, “what evil did I suffer in my state of slavery? Another clothed me, another supplied me with shoes, another fed me, another looked after me in sickness; and I did only a few services for him. But now a wretched man, what things I suffer, being a slave to many instead of to one. But however,” he says, “if I shall acquire rings11 then I shall live most prosperously and happily.” First, in order to acquire these rings, he submits to that which he is worthy of; then when he has acquired them, it is again all the same. Then he says, “If I shall be engaged in military service, I am free from all evils.” He obtains military service. He suffers as much as a flogged slave, and nevertheless he asks for a second service and a third. After this, when he has put the finishing stroke (the colophon)12 to his career, and is become a senator, then he becomes a slave by entering into the assembly, then he serves the finer and most splendid slavery⁠—not to be a fool, but to learn what Socrates taught, what is the nature of each thing that exists, and that a man should not rashly adapt preconceptions (προλήψεις) to the several things which are.13 For this is the cause to men of all their evils, the not being able to adapt the general preconceptions to the several things. But we have different opinions (about the cause of our evils). One man thinks that he is sick: not so however, but the fact is that he does not adapt his preconceptions right. Another thinks that he is poor; another that he has a severe father or mother; and another again that Caesar is not favorable to him. But all this is one and only one thing, the not knowing how to adapt the preconceptions. For who has not a preconception of that which is bad: that it is hurtful, that it ought to be avoided, that it ought in every way to be guarded against? One preconception is not repugnant to another,14 only where it comes to the matter of adaptation. What then is this evil, which is both hurtful, and a thing to be avoided? He answers, “not to be Caesar’s friend.”⁠—He is gone far from the mark, he has missed the adaptation, he is embarrassed, he seeks the things which are not at all pertinent to the matter; for when he has succeeded in being Caesar’s friend, nevertheless he has failed in finding what he sought. For what is that which every man seeks? To live secure, to be happy, to do everything as he wishes, not to be hindered, nor compelled. When then he is become the friend of Caesar, is he free from hindrance? free from compulsion? is he tranquil, is he happy? Of whom shall we inquire? What more trustworthy witness have we than this very man who is become Caesar’s friend? Come forward and tell us when did you sleep more quietly, now or before you became Caesar’s friend? Immediately you hear the answer, “Stop, I entreat you, and do not mock me: you know not what miseries I suffer, and sleep does not come to me; but one comes and says, ‘Caesar is already awake, he is now going forth:’ then come troubles and cares.”⁠—Well, when did you sup with more pleasure, now or before? Hear what he says about this also. He says that if he is not invited, he is pained: and if he is invited, he sups like a slave with his master, all the while being anxious that he does not say or do anything foolish. And what do you suppose that he is afraid of; lest he should be lashed like a slave? How can he expect anything so good? No, but as befits so great a man, Caesar’s friend, he is afraid that he may lose his head. And when did you bathe more free from trouble, and take your gymnastic exercise more quietly? In fine, which kind of life did you prefer? your present or your former life? I can swear that no man is so stupid or so ignorant of truth as not to bewail his own misfortunes the nearer he is in friendship to Caesar. Since then neither those who are called kings live as they choose, nor the friends of kings, who finally are those who are free? Seek, and you will find; for you have aids from nature for the discovery of truth. But if you are not able yourself by going along these ways only to discover that which follows, listen to those who have made the inquiry. What do they say? Does freedom seem to you a good thing? “The greatest good.” Is it possible then that he who obtains the greatest good can be unhappy or fare badly? “No.” Whomsoever then you shall see unhappy, unfortunate, lamenting, confidently declare that they are not free. “I do declare it.” We have now then got away from buying and selling and from such arrangements about matters of property: for if you have rightly assented to these matters, if the great king (the Persian king) is unhappy, he cannot be free, nor can a little king, nor a man of consular rank, nor one who has been twice consul.⁠—Be it so.

Further then answer me this question also: does freedom seem to you to be something great and noble and valuable?⁠—“How should it not seem so?” Is it possible then when a man obtains anything so great and valuable and noble to be mean?⁠—“It is not possible.”⁠—When then you see any man subject to another or flattering him contrary to his own opinion, confidently affirm that this man also is not free; and not only if he do this for a bit of supper, but also if he does it for a government (province) or a consulship. And call these men little slaves who for the sake of little matters do these things, and those who do so for the sake of great things call great slaves, as they deserve to be.⁠—“This is admitted also.”⁠—Do you think that freedom is a thing independent and self-governing?⁠—“Certainly.”⁠—Whomsoever then it is in the power of another to hinder and compel, declare that he is not free. And do not look, I entreat you, after his grandfathers and great grandfathers, or inquire about his being bought or sold; but if you hear him saying from his heart and with feeling, “Master,” even if the twelve fasces precede him (as consul), call him a slave. And if you hear him say, “Wretch that I am, how much I suffer,” call him a slave. If finally you see him lamenting, complaining, unhappy, call him a slave though he wears a praetexta.15 If then he is doing nothing of this kind, do not yet say that he is free, but learn his opinions, whether they are subject to compulsion, or may produce hindrance, or to bad fortune; and if you find him such, call him a slave who has a holiday in the Saturnalia:16 say that his master is from home; he will return soon, and you will know what he suffers. “Who will return?” Whoever has in himself the power over anything which is desired by the man, either to give it to him or to take it away. “Thus then have we many masters?” We have: for we have circumstances as masters prior to our present masters; and these circumstances are many. Therefore it must of necessity be that those who have the power over any of these circumstances must be our masters. For no man fears Caesar himself, but he fears death, banishment, deprivation of his property, prison, and disgrace. Nor does any man love Caesar, unless Caesar is a person of great merit, but he loves wealth, the office of tribune, praetor, or consul. When we love, and hate, and fear these things, it must be that those who have the power over them must be our masters. Therefore we adore them even as gods; for we think that what possesses the power of conferring the greatest advantage on us is divine. Then we wrongly assume (ὑποτάσσομεν) that a certain person has the power of conferring the greatest advantages; therefore he is something divine. For if we wrongly assume17 that a certain person has the power of conferring the greatest advantages, it is a necessary consequence that the conclusion from these premises must be false.

What then is that which makes a man free from hindrance and makes him his own master? For wealth does not do it, nor consulship, nor provincial government, nor royal power; but something else must be discovered. What then is that which when we write makes us free from hindrance and unimpeded? The knowledge of the art of writing. What then is it in playing the lute? The science of playing the lute. Therefore in life also it is the science of life. You have then heard in a general way: but examine the thing also in the several parts. Is it possible that he who desires any of the things which depend on others can be free from hindrance? No.⁠—Is it possible for him to be unimpeded? No.⁠—Therefore he cannot be free. Consider then: whether we have nothing which is in our own power only, or whether we have all things, or whether some things are in our own power, and others in the power of others.⁠—“What do you mean?”⁠—When you wish the body to be entire (sound), is it in your power or not?⁠—“It is not in my power.”⁠—When you wish it to be healthy?⁠—“Neither is this in my power.”⁠—When you wish it to be handsome?⁠—“Nor is this.”⁠—Life or death?⁠—“Neither is this in my power.”18⁠—Your body then is another’s, subject to every man who is stronger than yourself⁠—“It is.”⁠—But your estate, is it in your power to have it when you please, and as long as you please, and such as you please?⁠—“No.”⁠—And your slaves?⁠—“No.”⁠—And your clothes?⁠—“No.”⁠—And your house?⁠—“No.”⁠—And your horses?⁠—“Not one of these things.”⁠—And if you wish by all means your children to live, or your wife, or your brother, or your friends, is it in your power?⁠—“This also is not in my power.”

Whether then have you nothing which is in your own power, which depends on yourself only and cannot be taken from you, or have you anything of the kind?⁠—“I know not.”⁠—Look at the thing then thus, and examine it. Is any man able to make you assent to that which is false19⁠—“No man.”⁠—In the matter of assent then you are free from hindrance and obstruction.⁠—“Granted.”⁠—Well; and can a man force you to desire to move towards that to which you do not choose?⁠—“He can, for when he threatens me with death or bonds, he compels me to desire to move towards it.” If then, you despise death and bonds, do you still pay any regard to him?⁠—“No.”⁠—Is then the despising of death an act of your own or is it not yours?⁠—“It is my act.”⁠—It is your own act then also to desire to move towards a thing: or is it not so?⁠—“It is my own act.”⁠—But to desire to move away from a thing, whose act is that? This also is your act.⁠—“What then if I have attempted to walk, suppose another should hinder me.”⁠—What part of you does he hinder? does he hinder the faculty of assent?⁠—“No: but my poor body.”⁠—Yes, as he would do with a stone.⁠—“Granted; but I no longer walk.”⁠—And who told you that walking is your own act free from hindrance? for I said that this only was free from hindrance: to desire to move; but where there is need of body and its cooperation, you have heard long ago that nothing is your own.⁠—“Granted this also.”⁠—And who can compel you to desire what you do not wish?⁠—“No man.”⁠—And to propose or intend, or in short to make use of the appearances which present themselves, can any man compel you?⁠—“He cannot do this: but he will hinder me when I desire from obtaining what I desire.”⁠—If you desire anything which is your own, and one of the things which cannot be hindered, how will he hinder you?⁠—“He cannot in any way.”⁠—Who then tells you that he who desires the things that belong to another is free from hindrance?

“Must I then not desire health?” By no means, nor anything else that belongs to another: for what is not in your power to acquire or to keep when you please, this belongs to another. Keep then far from it not only your hands, but more than that, even your desires. If you do not, you have surrendered yourself as a slave; you have subjected your neck, if you admire20 anything not your ow

Translator Notes

  1. 1.

    Cicero, Paradoxa Stoicorum v: “Quid est enim libertas? Potestas vivendi ut velis. Quis igitur vivit ut vult, nisi qui recta sequitur,” etc.

  2. 2.

    προπίπτωνn. Compare book II chapter I at 10: ἐξαπατηθῆναι οὖν ἢ προπεσεῖν.

  3. 3.

    “Whoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin” John 8:31. (Elizabeth Carter.)

  4. 4.

    A usual form of oath. See book II chapter XX at 29. John Upton compares the Roman expression “Per Genium,” as in Horace Epistles i 7, 94:

    Quod te per Genium, dextramque, Deosque Penates
    Obsecro et obtestor.

  5. 5.

    A lover’s exclusion by his mistress was a common topic, and a serious cause of complaint (Lucretius, De Rerum Natura iv 1172):

    At lacrimans exclusus amator limina saepe
    Floribus et sertis operit.

    See also Horace, Odes, i 25.

  6. 6.

    Thrasonides was a character in one of Menander’s plays, titled Μισούμενος or the Hated.

  7. 7.

    It must have been rather difficult to manage a tame lion; but we read of such things among the Romans. Seneca, Epistles 41.

  8. 8.

    The keeping of birds in cages, parrots and others, was also common among the Romans. Ovid (Amores ii 6) has written a beautiful elegy on the death of a favorite parrot.

  9. 9.

    See book II chapter I at 26. The εἰκοστώναι were the Publicani, men who farmed this and other taxes. A tax of a twentieth of the value of a slave when manumitted was established at an early time (Livy History of Rome vii 16). It appears from this passage that the manumitted slave paid the tax out of his savings (peculium). See note 222.

  10. 10.

    The reader may guess the meaning.

  11. 11.

    A gold ring was worn by the Equites; and accordingly to desire the gold ring is the same as to desire to be raised to the Equestrian class.

  12. 12.

    The colophon. See note 315. After the words “most splendid slavery” it is probable that some words have accidentally been omitted in the manuscripts.

  13. 13.

    Compare book I chapter II at 6.

  14. 14.

    Compare book I chapter XXII.

  15. 15.

    Sic praetextatos referunt Artaxata mores.” —⁠Juvenal, Satires ii 170. See note 20.

  16. 16.

    Saturnalia. See note 159.

    At this season the slaves had liberty to enjoy themselves and to talk freely with their masters. Hence Horace says, Satires ii 74:

    Age, libertate Decembri,
    Quando ita majores voluerunt, utere.

  17. 17.

    Insigne hoc exemplum est τοῦ εἰκῆ τὰς προλήψεις ἐφαρμόζειν ταῖς πι μέρους οὐσίαις. De quo, vide i 22, 9; ii 11, 3; ii 17, 7.” —⁠John Upton

  18. 18.

    Johann Schweighäuser observes that death is in our power, as the Stoics taught; and Epictetus often tells us that the door is open. He suggests that the true reading may be καὶ οὐκ ἀποθανεῖν. I think that the text is right. Epictetus asks is “Life or death” in our power. He means no more than if he had said Life only.

  19. 19.

    He means that which seems to you to be false. See book III chapter XXII at 42.

    “In the matter of assent then”: this is the third τόρος or “locus” or division in philosophy (book III chapter II at 1⁠–⁠5). As to the Will, compare note 114. Epictetus affirms that a man cannot be compelled to assent, that is to admit, to allow, or, to use another word, to believe in that which seems to him to be false, or, to use the same word again, to believe in that in which he does not believe. When the Christian uses the two creeds, which begin with the words, “I believe, etc.,” he knows, or he ought to know, that he cannot compel an unbeliever to accept the same belief. He may by pains and penalties of various kinds compel some persons to profess or to express the same belief: but as no pains or penalties could compel some Christians to deny their belief, so I suppose that perhaps there are men who could not be compelled to express this belief when they have it not. The case of the believer and the unbeliever however are not the same. The believer may be strengthened in his belief by the belief that he will in some way be punished by God if he denies that which he believes. The unbeliever will not have the same motive or reason for not expressing his assent to that which he does not believe. He believes that it is and will be all the same to him with respect to God, whether he gives his assent to that which he does not believe or refuses his assent. There remains nothing then to trouble him if he expresses his assent to that which he does not believe, except the opinion of those who know that he does not believe, or his own reflections on expressing his assent to that which he does not believe; or in other words his publication of a lie, which may probably do no harm to any man or in any way. I believe that some men are strong enough, under some circumstances at least, to refuse their assent to anything which they do not believe; but I do not affirm that they would do this under all circumstances.

    To return to the matter under consideration, a man cannot be compelled by any power to accept voluntarily a thing as true, when he believes that it is not true; and this act of his is quite independent of the matter whether his unbelief is well founded or not. He does not believe because he cannot believe. Yet it is said (Mark 16:11) in the received text, as it now stands, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned” (condemned). The cause, as it is called, of this unbelief is explained by some theologians; but all men do not admit the explanation to be sufficient: and it does not concern the present subject.

  20. 20.

    The word “admire” is θαυμάσῃς in the original. The word is often used by Epictetus, and Horace uses “admirari” in this Stoical sense. See note 188.

  21. 21.

    See Johann Schweighäuser’s note on μέρος.

  22. 22.

    The word is ἀγγαρεία, a word of Persian origin (Herodotus, The Histories viii 98). It means here the seizure of animals for military purposes when it is necessary. John Upton refers to Matthew 5:41, Mark 15:21 for similar uses of the verb ἀγγαρεύω.

  23. 23.

    Here he speaks of asses being shod. The Latin translation of the word (ὑποδημάτια) in Epictetus is “ferreas calces.” I suppose they could use nothing but iron.

  24. 24.

    See Johann Schweighäuser’s note.

  25. 25.

    See Johann Schweighäuser’s note.

  26. 26.

    Johann Schweighäuser suggests καταβεβλήκαμεν instead of ἀποβεβλήκαμεν, though all his manuscripts have the word in the text. I do not think that his proposed alteration is an improvement.

  27. 27.

    The word is ἀποτειχίζω, which means what I have translated. The purpose of circumvallation was to take and sometimes also to destroy a fortress. Johann Schweighäuser translates the word by “destruam,” and that is perhaps not contrary to the meaning of the text; but it is not the exact meaning of the word.

  28. 28.

    In this passage and in what follows we find the emphatic affirmation of the duty of conformity and of the subjection of man’s will to the will of God. The words are conclusive evidence of the doctrine of Epictetus that a man ought to subject himself in all things to the will of God or to that which he believes to be the will of God. No Christian martyr ever proclaimed a more solemn obedience to God’s will. The Christian martyr indeed has given perfect proof of his sincerity by enduring torments and death: the heathen philosopher was not put to the same test, and we cannot therefore say that he would have been able to bear it.

  29. 29.

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

  30. 30.

    ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ: he means “on earth.”

  31. 31.

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

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

  32. 32.

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

  33. 33.

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

  34. 34.

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

  35. 35.

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

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

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

  36. 36.

    See the note of Johann Schweighäuser on this passage.

  37. 37.

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

  38. 38.

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

  39. 39.

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

  40. 40.

    See Johann Schweighäuser’s note 15.

  41. 41.

    See note 21.

  42. 42.

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

  43. 43.

    See Johann Schweighäuser’s note.

  44. 44.

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

  45. 45.

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

  46. 46.

    Stoicus occidit Baream, delator amicum,
    Discipulumque senex.

    —⁠Juvenal, Satires iii 116

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

  47. 47.

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

  48. 48.

    Horace Satires ii 5.

  49. 49.

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

  50. 50.

    Compare Plato (Symposium, p. 206): “All men conceive both as to the body and as to the soul, and when they have arrived at a certain age, our nature desires to procreate. But it cannot procreate in that which is ugly, but in that which is beautiful. For the conjunction of man and woman is generation; but this act is divine, and this in the animal which is mortal is divine, conceiving and begetting.” See what is said in note 420 on marrying. In a certain sense the procreation of children is a duty, and consequently the providing for them is also a duty. It is the fulfilling of the will and purpose of the Deity to people the earth; and therefore the act of procreation is divine. So a man’s duty is to labor in some way, and if necessary, to earn his living and sustain the life which he has received; and this is also a divine act. Paul’s opinion of marriage is contained in 1 Corinthians 7. Some of his teaching on this matter has been justly condemned. He has no conception of the true nature of marriage; at least he does not show that he has in this chapter. His teaching is impracticable, contrary to that of Epictetus, and to the nature and constitution of man; and it is rejected by the good sense of Christians who affect to receive his teaching; except, I suppose, by the superstitious body of Christians, who recommend and commend the so-called religious, and unmarried life.

  51. 51.

    Felicion. See book I chapter XIX.

  52. 52.

    Epictetus alludes to his lameness: compare book I chapter VIII at 14; book I chapter XVI at 20; and other passages. (John Upton.)

  53. 53.

    Johann Schweighäuser doubts if the words οὐ γὰρ ἡν, which I have omitted, are genuine, and gives his reasons for the doubt.

  54. 54.

    Johann Schweighäuser has a note on this difficult passage, which is rather obscure.

  55. 55.

    The sense of “law” (ὁ νόμος) can be collected from what follows. Compare the discourse of Socrates on obedience to the law. (Criton, chapter 11, etc.)

  56. 56.

    See Johann Schweighäuser’s note on ἀπεριστάτου.

  57. 57.

    Socrates fought at Potidaea, Amphipolis and Delium. He is said to have gained the prize for courage at Delium. He was a brave soldier as well as a philosopher, a union of qualities not common. (Plato’s Apology.)

  58. 58.

    Socrates with others was ordered by the Thirty tyrants, who at that time governed Athens, to arrest Leon in the island of Salamis and to bring him to be put to death. But Socrates refused to obey the order. Few men would have done what he did under the circumstances. (Plato’s Apology; Marcus Aurelius, Meditations vii 66.)

  59. 59.

    Cicero, Tusculan Disputations i 29.

  60. 60.

    The Dialog of Plato, named Criton, contains the arguments which were used by his friends to persuade Socrates to escape from prison, and the reply of Socrates.

  61. 61.

    This alludes to the behavior of Socrates when he refused to put to the vote the matter of the Athenian generals and their behavior after the naval battle of Arginusae. The violence of the weather prevented the commanders from collecting and honorably burying those who fell in the battle; and the Athenians, after their hasty fashion, wished all the commanders to be put to death. But Socrates, who was in office at this time, resisted the unjust clamour of the people. Xenophon Hellenica, i chapter 7, 15; Plato, Apologia; Xenophon, Memorabilia i 1, 18.

  62. 62.

    The original is ποῦ γὰρ ἂν ἔτι ἔμενον ἐκεῖνοι; this seems to mean, if we had escaped and left the country, where would those have been to whom we might have been useful? They would have been left behind, and we could have done nothing for them.

  63. 63.

    This is the conclusion about Socrates, whom Epictetus highly valued: the remembrance of what Socrates did and said is even more useful than his life. “The life of the dead,” says Cicero of Servius Sulpicius, the great Roman jurist and Cicero’s friend, “rests in the remembrance of the living.” Epictetus has told us of some of the acts of Socrates, which prove him to have been a brave and honest man. He does not tell us here what Socrates said, which means what he taught; but he knew what it was. Modern writers have expounded the matter at length, and in a form which Epictetus would not or could not have used.⁠—Socrates left to others the questions which relate to the material world, and he first taught, as we are told, the things which concern man’s daily life and his intercourse with other men: in other words he taught Ethic (the principles of morality). Fields and trees, he said, will teach me nothing, but man in his social state will; and man then is the proper subject of the philosophy of Socrates. The beginning of this knowledge was as he said, to know himself according to the precept of the Delphic oracle, “Know thyself (γνῶθι σεαυτόν)”: and the object of his philosophy was to comprehend the nature of man as a moral being in all relations; and among these the relation of man to God as the father of all, creator and ruler of all, as Plato expresses it. Socrates taught that what we call death is not the end of man; death is only the road to another life. The death of Socrates was conformable to his life and teaching. “Socrates died not only with the noblest courage and tranquillity, but he also refused, as we are told, to escape from death, which the laws of the state permitted, by going into exile or paying a fine, because as he said, if he had himself consented to a fine or allowed others to propose it, (Xenophon, Apology of Socrates §22), such an act would have been an admission of his guilt. Both (Socrates and Jesus) offered themselves with the firmest resolution for a holy cause, which was so far from being lost through their death that it only served rather to make it the general cause of mankind.” (Das Christliche des Platonismus oder Socrates und Christus, by Ferdinand Christian Baur.)

    This essay by Baur is very ingenious. Perhaps there are some readers who will disagree with him on many points in the comparison of Socrates and Christus. However the essay is well worth the trouble of reading.

    The opinion of Rousseau in his comparison of Jesus and Socrates is in some respects more just than that of Baur, though the learning of the Frenchman is very small when compared with that of the German. “What prejudices, what blindness must a man have,” says Rousseau, “when he dares to compare the son of Sophroniscus with the son of Mary!⁠—The death of Socrates philosophising tranquilly with his friends is the most gentle that a man could desire; that of Jesus expiring in torments, insulted, jeered, cursed by a whole people, is the most horrible that man could dread. Socrates taking the poisoned cup blesses him who presents it and weeps; Jesus in his horrible punishment prays for his savage executioners. Yes, if the life and the death of Socrates are those of a sage, the life and the death of Jesus are those of a God.” (Rousseau, Emile, volume iii p. 166. Amsterdam, 1765.)