Epictetus

Very little is known of the life of Epictetus. It is said that he was a native of Hierapolis in Phrygia, a town between the Maeander and a branch of the Maeander named the Lycus. Hierapolis is mentioned in the epistle of Paul to the people of Colossae (Coloss. iv. 13); from which it has been concluded that there was a Christian church in Hierapolis in the time of the apostle. The date of the birth of Epictetus is unknown. The only recorded fact of his early life is that he was a slave in Rome, and his master was Epaphroditus, a profligate freedman of the emperor Nero. There is a story that the master broke his slave's leg by torturing him; but it is better to trust to the evidence of Simplicius, the commentator on the Encheiridion or Manual, who says that Epictetus was weak in body and lame from an early age. It is not said how he became a slave; but it has been asserted in modern times that the parents sold the child. I have not, however, found any authority for this statement.

Very little is known about the life of Epictetus. He is said to have been born in Hierapolis in Phrygia. The town lay between the Maeander and a branch of that river called the Lycus. Hierapolis is mentioned in Paul’s letter to the people of Colossae (Coloss. iv. 13). From this, some have concluded that Hierapolis had a Christian church in the apostle’s time. The date of Epictetus’s birth is unknown. The only recorded fact about his early life is that he was a slave in Rome. His master was Epaphroditus, a dissolute freedman of the emperor Nero. One story says that his master broke his leg by torturing him. But it is better to trust the evidence of Simplicius, the commentator on the Encheiridion or Manual. He says that Epictetus was physically weak and lame from an early age. There is no account of how he became a slave. But in modern times, some have claimed that his parents sold him as a child. I have found no authority for this claim, however.

It may be supposed that the young slave showed intelligence, for his master sent or permitted him to attend the lectures of C. Musonius Rufus, an eminent Stoic philosopher. It may seem strange that such a master should have wished to have his slave made into a philosopher; but Garnier, the author of a Mémoire sur les ouvrages d'Epictète, explains this matter very well in a communication to Schweighaeuser. Garnier says: “Epictetus, born at Hierapolis of Phrygia of poor parents, was indebted apparently for the advantages of a good education to the whim, which was common at the end of the Republic and under the first emperors, among the great of Rome to reckon among their numerous slaves Grammarians, Poets, Rhetoricians, and Philosophers, in the same way as rich financiers in these later ages have been led to form at a great cost rich and numerous libraries. This supposition is the only one which can explain to us, how a wretched child, born as poor as Irus, had received a good education, and how a rigid Stoic was the slave of Epaphroditus, one of the officers of the Imperial guard. For we cannot suspect that it was through predilection for the Stoic doctrine and for his own use, that the confidant and the minister of the debaucheries of Nero would have desired to possess such a slave.”

The young slave may have shown intelligence, since his master sent him or allowed him to attend the lectures of C. Musonius Rufus, a prominent Stoic philosopher. It may seem strange that such a master wanted his slave trained as a philosopher. But Garnier, the author of a Mémoire sur les ouvrages d'Epictète, explains this very well in a communication to Schweighaeuser. Garnier says: “Epictetus was born to poor parents at Hierapolis in Phrygia. He apparently owed the advantages of a good education to a fashion among the great of Rome. At the end of the Republic and under the first emperors, they commonly kept grammarians, poets, rhetoricians, and philosophers among their many slaves. They did this much as wealthy financiers in more recent times have spent great sums building large, rich libraries. This supposition is the only one that can explain how a wretched child, born as poor as Irus, received a good education. It also explains how a strict Stoic came to be the slave of Epaphroditus, an officer of the Imperial guard. For we cannot suspect that Nero’s confidant and servant in his debaucheries wanted such a slave because he favored Stoic doctrine and wished to follow it himself.”

Some writers assume that Epictetus was manumitted by his master; but I can find no evidence for this statement. Epaphroditus accompanied Nero when he fled from Rome before his enemies, and he aided the miserable tyrant in killing himself. Domitian (Sueton. Domit. 14) afterwards put Epaphroditus to death for this service to Nero. We may conclude that Epictetus in some way obtained his freedom, and that he began to teach at Rome; but after the expulsion of the philosophers from Rome by Domitian a.d. 89, he retired to Nicopolis in Epirus, a city built by Augustus to commemorate the victory at Actium. Epictetus opened a school or lecture room at Nicopolis, where he taught till he was an old man. The time of his death is unknown. Epictetus was never married, as we learn from Lucian (Demonax, c. 55, Tom. ii. ed. Hemsterh. p. 393).¹ When Epictetus was finding fault with Demonax aud advising him to take a wife and beget children, for this also, as Epictetus said, was a philosopher's duty, to leave in place of himself another in the Universe, Demonax refuted the doctrine by answering, Give me then, Epictetus, one of your own daughters. Simplicius says (Comment, c. 46, p. 432, ed. Schweigh.) that Epictetus lived alone a long time. At last he took a woman into his house as a nurse for a child, which one of Epictetus' friends was going to expose on account of his poverty, but Epictetus took the child and brought it up.

Some writers assume that Epictetus was freed by his master, but I can find no evidence for this claim. Epaphroditus accompanied Nero when he fled Rome before his enemies. He helped the miserable tyrant kill himself. Domitian later put Epaphroditus to death for this service to Nero (Sueton. Domit. 14). We may conclude that Epictetus gained his freedom somehow and began teaching in Rome. But after Domitian expelled the philosophers from Rome in a.d. 89, Epictetus withdrew to Nicopolis in Epirus. Augustus had built the city to commemorate the victory at Actium. Epictetus opened a school or lecture room in Nicopolis, where he taught until he was old. The time of his death is unknown. Epictetus never married, as we learn from Lucian (Demonax, c. 55, Tom. ii. ed. Hemsterh. p. 393).¹ Epictetus once criticized Demonax and advised him to marry and have children. Epictetus said that a philosopher had a duty to leave another person in his place in the Universe. Demonax refuted this doctrine by answering, Give me then, Epictetus, one of your own daughters. Simplicius says that Epictetus lived alone for a long time (Comment, c. 46, p. 432, ed. Schweigh.). At last, Epictetus took a woman into his house to care for a child. One of his friends had intended to abandon the child because he was poor, but Epictetus took the child and raised it.

Epictetus wrote nothing; and all that we have under his name was written by an affectionate pupil, Arrian, afterwards the historian of Alexander the Great, who, as he tells us, took down in writing the philosopher's discourses (the Epistle of Arrian to Lucius Gellius, p.1). These discourses formed eight books, but only four are extant under the title of Ἐπικτήτου διατριβαί. Simplicius in his commentary on the Ἐγχειρίδιον or Manual, states that this work also was put together by Arrian, who selected from the discourses of Epictetus what he considered to be most useful, and most necessary, and most adapted to move men's minds. Simplicius also says that the contents of the Encheiridion are found nearly altogether and in the same words in various parts of the Discourses. Arrian also wrote a work on the life and death of Epictetus. The events of the philosopher's studious life were probably not many nor remarkable; but we should have been glad if this work had been preserved, which told, as Simplicius says, what kind of man Epictetus was.

Epictetus wrote nothing himself. Everything we have under his name was written by an affectionate pupil, Arrian, who later became the historian of Alexander the Great. Arrian tells us that he wrote down the philosopher’s discourses (the Epistle of Arrian to Lucius Gellius, p.1). These discourses filled eight books, but only four survive under the title Ἐπικτήτου διατριβαί. In his commentary on the Ἐγχειρίδιον or Manual, Simplicius says that Arrian also put together this work. Arrian selected what he thought most useful, most necessary, and most likely to move people’s minds from Epictetus’s discourses. Simplicius also says that nearly all the contents of the Encheiridion appear in various parts of the Discourses, in the same words. Arrian also wrote a work about the life and death of Epictetus. The events of the philosopher’s life of study were probably few and unremarkable. But we would have been glad if this work had survived. As Simplicius says, it told what kind of man Epictetus was.

Photius (Biblioth. 58) mentions among Arrian's works Conversations with Epictetus, Ὁμιλίαι Ἐπικτήτου in twelve books. Upton thinks that this work is only another name for the Discourses, and that Photius has made the mistake of taking the Conversations to be a different work from the Discourses. Yet Photius has enumerated eight books of the Discourses and twelve books of the Conversations. Schweighaeuser observes that Photius had not seen these works of Arrian on Epictetus, for so he concludes from the brief notice of these works by Photius. The fact is that Photius does not say that he had read these books, as he generally does when he is speaking of the books, which he enumerates in his Bibliotheca. The conclusion is that we are not certain that there was a work of Arrian, entitled the Conversations of Epictetus.

Photius (Biblioth. 58) lists Conversations with Epictetus, Ὁμιλίαι Ἐπικτήτου, in twelve books among Arrian's works. Upton thinks this is simply another name for the Discourses. He believes Photius mistakenly treated the Conversations as a separate work. Yet Photius lists eight books of the Discourses and twelve books of the Conversations. Schweighaeuser observes that Photius had not seen Arrian's works on Epictetus. He draws this conclusion from Photius's brief description of them. In fact, Photius does not say that he had read these books. He generally says so when discussing the books he lists in his Bibliotheca. We therefore cannot be certain that Arrian wrote a work titled Conversations of Epictetus.

The Discourses of Epictetus with the Encheiridion and Fragments were translated into English by the learned lady Mrs. Elizabeth Carter; who is said to have lived to the age of eighty-nine. The fourth edition (1807) contains the translator's last additions and alterations. There is an Introduction to this translation which contains a summary view of the Stoic philosophy for the purpose of explaining Epictetus; and also there are notes to the translation. The editor of this fourth edition says that “the Introduction and notes of the Christian translator of Epictetus are, in the estimation of most readers, not the least valuable parts of the work”: and he adds “this was also the opinion of the late Archbishop Secker, who though he thought very highly of the philosophy of Epictetus, considered the Introduction and notes as admirably calculated to prevent any mistake concerning it, as well as to amend and instruct the world.” The Introduction is certainly useful, though it is not free from errors. I do not think that the notes are valuable. I have used some of them without any remarks; and I have used others and made some remarks on them where I thought that Mrs. Carter was mistaken in her opinion of the original text, or on other matters.

The learned Mrs. Elizabeth Carter translated The Discourses of Epictetus, the Encheiridion, and the Fragments into English. She is said to have lived to the age of eighty-nine. The fourth edition (1807) contains the translator's final additions and changes. The translation has an Introduction that summarizes Stoic philosophy to explain Epictetus. It also includes notes. The editor of the fourth edition says that “the Introduction and notes of the Christian translator of Epictetus are, in the opinion of most readers, among the most valuable parts of the work.” He adds that “the late Archbishop Secker shared this opinion. Though he thought very highly of the philosophy of Epictetus, he believed the Introduction and notes were admirably suited to prevent misunderstandings of it and to improve and instruct the world.” The Introduction is certainly useful, though it contains errors. I do not think the notes are valuable. I have used some of them without comment. I have also used others and commented on them where I thought Mrs. Carter was mistaken about the original text or other matters.

The translation of Mrs. Carter is good; and perhaps no Englishman at that time would have made a better translation. I intended at first to revise Mrs. Carter's translation, and to correct any errors that I might discover. I had revised about half of it, when I found that I was not satisfied with my work, and I was advised by a learned friend to translate the whole myself. This was rather a great undertaking for an old man, who is now past seventy-six. I have however done the work with great care, and as well as I could. I have always compared my translation with the Latin version and with Mrs. Carter's; and I think that this is the best way of avoiding errors such as any translator may make. A man who has not attempted to translate a Greek or Latin author does not know the difficulty of the undertaking. That which may appear plain when he reads, often becomes very difficult when he tries to express it in another language. It is true that Epictetus is generally intelligible; but the style or manner of the author, or we may say of Arrian, who attempted to produce what he heard, is sometimes made obscure by the continual use of questions and answers to them, and for other reasons.

Mrs. Carter's translation is good, and perhaps no Englishman of her time would have done better. At first, I intended to revise her translation and correct any errors I found. But after revising about half of it, I found that I was not satisfied with my work. A learned friend advised me to translate the whole work myself. This was a rather large undertaking for an old man, now over seventy-six. However, I have done the work with great care and as well as I could. I have always compared my translation with the Latin version and with Mrs. Carter's. I think this is the best way to avoid errors that any translator might make. Anyone who has not tried to translate a Greek or Latin author does not know how difficult it is. A passage that seems clear when read can become very difficult to express in another language. It is true that Epictetus is generally understandable. But the author's style, or rather the style of Arrian, who tried to reproduce what he heard, is sometimes hard to follow. This is partly because of the constant use of questions and answers, though there are other reasons too.

Upton remarks in a note on iii. 23 (p. 184 Trans.), that “there are many passages in these dissertations which are ambiguous or rather confused on account of the small questions, and because the matter is not expanded by oratorical copiousness, not to mention other causes.” The discourses of Epictetus, it is supposed, were spoken extempore, and so one thing after another would come into the thoughts of the speaker (Wolf). Schweighaeuser also observes in a note (ii. 336 of his edition) that the connexion of the discourse is sometimes obscure through the omission of some words which are necessary to indicate the connexion of the thoughts. The reader then will find that he cannot always understand Epictetus, if he does not read him very carefully, and some passages more than once. He must also think and reflect, or he will miss the meaning. I do not say that the book is worth all this trouble. Every man must judge for himself. But I should not have translated the book, if I had not thought it worth study; and I think that all books of this kind require careful reading, if they are worth reading at all.

Upton remarks in a note on iii. 23 (p. 184 Trans.) that “many passages in these discourses are ambiguous, or rather confused, because of the short questions and because the subject is not developed with the fullness of formal oratory, not to mention other causes.” Epictetus is thought to have spoken these discourses without preparation. As Wolf notes, one thought after another would therefore have occurred to him as he spoke. Schweighaeuser also comments on this in a note (ii. 336 of his edition). He observes that the connection between ideas is sometimes obscure because words needed to show it have been omitted. Readers will therefore find that they cannot always understand Epictetus unless they read him very carefully. They may need to read some passages more than once. They must also think and reflect, or they will miss the meaning. I do not say that the book is worth all this trouble. Each person must judge for themselves. But I would not have translated the book if I had not thought it worth studying. And I think all books of this kind require careful reading, if they are worth reading at all.

The text of Epictetus is sometimes corrupted, and this corruption causes a few difficulties. However, these difficulties are not numerous enough to cause or to admit much variety or diversity in the translations of the text. This remark will explain why many parts of my translation are the same or nearly the same as Mrs. Carter's. When this happened, I did not think it necessary to alter my translation in order that it might not be the same as hers. I made my translation first, and then compared it with Mrs. Carter's and the Latin version. I hope that I have not made many blunders. I do not suppose that I have made none.

The text of Epictetus is sometimes corrupted, and this causes a few difficulties. But these difficulties are too few to cause or allow much variation in translations. This explains why many parts of my translation are the same as or nearly identical to Mrs. Carter's. In those cases, I saw no need to change my translation simply to make it different from hers. I made my translation first, then compared it with Mrs. Carter's and the Latin version. I hope I have not made many mistakes. I do not suppose I have made none.

The last and best edition of the Discourses, the Encheiridion, and the fragments is by J. Schweighaeuser in 6 vols. 8vo. This edition contains the commentary of Simplicius on the Encheiridion, and two volumes of useful notes on the Discourses. These notes are selected from those of Wolf, Upton, and a few from other commentators; but a large part are by Schweighaeuser himself, who was an excellent scholar and a very sensible man. I have read all these notes, and I have used them. Many of the notes to the translation are my own.

The latest and best edition of the Discourses, the Encheiridion, and the fragments is by J. Schweighaeuser. It was published in six octavo volumes. The edition includes Simplicius’s commentary on the Encheiridion and two volumes of useful notes on the Discourses. The notes are selected from those of Wolf and Upton, with a few from other commentators. But many are by Schweighaeuser himself, who was an excellent scholar and a very sensible man. I have read and used all these notes. Many of the notes to the translation are my own.