Against a Person Once Caught in Adultery

As Epictetus was saying that man is formed for fidelity, and that he who subverts fidelity subverts the peculiar characteristic of men, there entered one of those who are considered to be men of letters, who had once been detected in adultery in the city. Then Epictetus continued, But if we lay aside this fidelity for which we are formed and make designs against our neighbour's wife, what are we doing? What else but destroying and overthrowing? Whom, the man of fidelity, the man of modesty, the man of sanctity. Is this all? And are we not overthrowing neighbourhood, and friendship, and the community; and in what place are we putting ourselves? How shall I consider you, man? As a neighbour, as a friend? What kind of one? As a citizen? Wherein shall I trust you? So if you were an utensil so worthless that a man could not use you, you would be pitched out on the dung heaps, and no man would pick you up. But if being a man you are unable to fill any place which befits a man, what shall we do with you? For suppose that you cannot hold the place of a friend, can you hold the place of a slave? And who will trust you? Are you not then content that you also should be pitched somewhere on a dung heap, as a useless utensil, and a bit of dung? Then will you say, no man cares for me, a man of letters? They do not, because you are bad and useless. It is just as if the wasps complained because no man cares for them, but all fly from them, and if a man can, he strikes them and knocks them down. You have such a sting that you throw into trouble and pain any man that you wound with it. What would you have us do with you? You have no place where you can be put.

Epictetus was saying that human beings are made for fidelity. He said that anyone who undermines fidelity undermines the quality that makes us human. Just then, a man entered who was regarded as a scholar. He had once been caught committing adultery in the city. Epictetus continued: But what are we doing if we abandon the fidelity we are made for and make designs on our neighbor's wife? What else are we doing but destroying and overthrowing? Whom are we destroying? The faithful, modest, and honorable man. Is that all? Aren't we also destroying neighborliness, friendship, and community? And where does that leave us? How am I to regard you, sir? As a neighbor, as a friend? What kind of neighbor or friend? As a citizen? How can I trust you? If you were a utensil so worthless that no one could use you, you would be thrown on the dung heap. No one would pick you up. But if you are a human being who cannot fill any role fit for a human being, what should we do with you? Suppose you cannot be a friend. Can you be a slave? And who will trust you? Shouldn't you be content to be thrown somewhere on a dung heap, like a useless utensil and a piece of dung? Then will you say, "No one cares for me, a scholar"? They do not, because you are bad and useless. It is as if wasps complained that no one cares for them. Instead, everyone runs away from them, and if someone can, he strikes them and knocks them down. Your sting causes trouble and pain to anyone you wound with it. What would you have us do with you? There is no place for you.

What then, are not women common by nature?²⁵¹ So I [1] say also; for a little pig is common to all the invited guests, but when the portions have been distributed, go, if you think it right, and snatch up the portion of him who reclines next to you, or slily steal it, or place your hand down by it and lay hold of it, and if you can not tear away a bit of the meat, grease your fingers and lick them. A fine companion over cups, and Socratic guest indeed! Well, is not the theatre common to the citizens? When then they have taken their seats, come, if you think proper, and eject one of them. In this way women also are common by nature. When then the legislator, like the master of a feast, has distributed them, will you not also look for your own portion and not filch and handle what belongs to another. But I am a man of letters and understand Archedemus.²⁵²—Understand Archedemus then, and be an adulterer, and faithless, and instead of a man, be a wolf or an ape: for what is the difference?²⁵³

But aren’t women shared by nature?²⁵¹ I [1] say so too. A small pig is shared by all the guests at a feast. But once the portions have been handed out, go ahead, if you think it right. Grab the portion of the man reclining next to you, or steal it on the sly. Or reach over and take hold of it. And if you can’t tear off a bit of meat, grease your fingers and lick them. What a fine drinking companion and Socratic guest you are! Well, isn’t the theater shared by the citizens? Then, once they have taken their seats, go ahead and throw one of them out, if you think it proper. In the same way, women are shared by nature. But the lawmaker, like the host of a feast, has handed them out. So won’t you look for your own portion, instead of stealing and handling what belongs to another? But I am a man of learning and understand Archedemus.²⁵² Then understand Archedemus, and be an adulterer and faithless. Instead of a man, be a wolf or an ape. What is the difference?²⁵³