Discourses - Epictetus (amazing books to read .txt) 📗

is no resurrection of the dead; and he seems to say that we shall seek or ought to seek only the pleasures of sense, because life is short, if we do not believe in a resurrection of the dead. It may be added that there is not any direct assertion in this chapter that Christ ascended to heaven in a bodily form, or that he ascended to heaven in any way. He then says (verse 35), “But some man will say: How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?” He answers this question (verse 36), “Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die”: and he adds that “God giveth it (the seed) a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.” We all know that the body, which is produced from the seed, is not the body “that shall be:” and we also know that the seed which is sown does not die, and that if the seed died, no body would be produced from such seed. His conclusion is that the dead “is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body” (σῶμα πνευματικόν). I believe that the commentators do not agree about this “spiritual body”: but it seems plain that Paul did not teach that the body which will rise will be the same as the body which is buried. He says (verse 50) that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” Yet in the Apostles’ Creed we pronounce our belief in the “resurrection of the body”: but in the Nicene Creed it is said we look “for the resurrection of the dead,” which is a different thing or may have a different meaning from “the resurrection of the body.” In the ministration of baptism to such as are of riper years, the person to be baptized is asked “Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty,” etc. in the terms of the Church Creeds, but in place of the resurrection of the body or of the dead, he is asked if he believes “in the resurrection of the flesh.”

The various opinions of divines of the English church on the resurrection of the body are stated by Augustus Clissold in the Practical Nature of the Theological Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg in a Letter to Whately, Archbishop of Dublin, 1859, 2nd ed. ↩

Seneca De Consolatione ad Polybium chapter 30; Cicero, Tusculan Disputations iii 13. ↩

Compare book I chapter XII at 2; book II chapter XIV at 11; book III chapter XXVI at 28. “Compare this with the description of the universal care of Providence, Matthew 10:29⁠–⁠30, and the occasion on which it was produced.” —⁠Elizabeth Carter ↩

See book I chapter XIX at 19. ↩

On the strange words ὀρδινατίων and ὀπτικίοις, which occur in this sentence, see the notes in Johann Schweighäuser’s edition. ↩

Compare book III chapter XV at 4. ↩

These games were celebrated once in four years. ↩

“All the circuit of the games” means the circuit of the Pythian, Isthmian, Nemean, and Olympic games. A man who had contended in these four games victoriously was named Periodonices, or Periodeutes. (John Upton.)

The Greeks used to put quails in a cockpit, as those who are old enough may remember that we used to put game cocks to fight with one another. Johann Schweighäuser describes a way of trying the courage of these quails from Pollux (Onomasticon ix 109); but I suppose that the birds fought also with one another. ↩

John Upton supposed that the words Ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὅμοιον⁠ ⁠… to κακῶς ἐνεργῆσαι, in the translation, “But the one case is not⁠ ⁠… to fly from evil acts,” are said by the adversary of Epictetus, and Elizabeth Carter has followed Upton in the translation. But then there is no sense in the last sentence Οἱ πόνοι ἄρα etc., in the translation, “Sufferings then” etc. The reader may consult Johann Schweighäuser’s note. I suppose that Epictetus is speaking the words “But the one case” etc. to the end of the chapter. The adversary, who is not punished like a slave, and has no pains to remind him of his faults, is supposed so far not to have felt the consequences of his bad acts; but Epictetus concludes that sufferings of a painful character would be useful to him, as they are to all persons who do what they ought not to do. There is perhaps some difficulty in the word πειρατηρίων. But I think that Schweighäuser has correctly explained the passage. ↩

“Compare this chapter with the beautiful and affecting discourses of our Saviour on the same subject, Matthew 6:25⁠–⁠34; Luke 12:22⁠–⁠30.” —⁠Elizabeth Carter. The first verse of Matthew begins, “Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink” etc. No Christian literally follows the advice of this and the following verses, and he would be condemned by the judgment of all men if he did. ↩

It is very absurd to suppose that no fugitive slave ever died of hunger. How could Epictetus know that? ↩

He supposes that the man who is dying of hunger has also wife and children, who will suffer the same dreadful end. The consolation, if it is any, is that the rich and luxurious and kings will also die. The fact is true. Death is the lot of all. But a painful death by hunger cannot be alleviated by a man knowing that all must die in some way. It seems as if the philosopher