Meditations, Book 9
Marcus Aurelius · Greek original · new English translation and commentary by Text Atlas
Overview
Book 9 binds inward responsibility to fellowship, testing both against death, disappointment, and the desire for repayment.
Book 9 repeatedly tests how a person can remain socially responsible without making moral steadiness depend on other people or external outcomes. Its opening gives that project a theological basis: rational beings are made for one another, and truth and justice answer to the same nature. The long affinity argument later strengthens the claim of connection, while several short exercises distinguish the event that arrives from the judgment and action the speaker contributes. These are recurring relations within a notebook, not proof of a single planned sequence. The severe descriptions of bodies, fame, and political display reduce the attractions that might divert action from its proper end. Yet the reductions repeatedly meet counterweights: care amid social exhaustion, goodwill toward hostile critics, the possibility of teaching, and the demand to attempt even small civic improvements. Looking inward is thus not a license to leave the common life. The paired requirements of composure and justice at 9.31 express the relation compactly. Death and change widen the scale of that discipline. Life contains familiar endings; observers perish with what they observe; even the earth enters further transformations. These arguments do not resolve every question of survival, and the alternative cosmologies at 9.28 and 9.39 are used to test conduct without being flattened into one doctrine. The fragment at 9.28 remains a textual limit on system-building. Prayer, too, is redirected toward the exercise of responsibility while divine cooperation stays possible. The closing chapter gathers several recurrent movements: expect error, apply gentleness, examine one’s own reaction, and stop treating beneficence as an unpaid claim on a recipient. The eye and feet make good action its own completed exercise of a natural function. This offers a practical point of convergence for the book’s fruit, civic membership, and agency images, while the uneasy voices of fatigue and rebuke remain audible rather than being converted into a uniformly serene doctrine.
9.1
Ὁ ἀδικῶν ἀσεβεῖ· τῆς γὰρ τῶν ὅλων φύσεως κατεσκευακυίας τὰ λογικὰ ζῷα ἕνεκεν ἀλλήλων, ὥστε ὠφελεῖν μὲν ἄλληλα κατ’ ἀξίαν βλάπτειν δὲ μηδαμῶς, ὁ τὸ βούλημα ταύτης παραβαίνων ἀσεβεῖ δηλονότι εἰς τὴν πρεσβυτάτην τῶν θεῶν. καὶ ὁ ψευδόμενος δὲ ἀσεβεῖ περὶ τὴν αὐτὴν θεόν· ἡ γὰρ τῶν ὅλων φύσις ὄντων ἐστὶ φύσις· τὰ δέ γε ὄντα πρὸς τὰ ὑπάρχοντα πάντα οἰκείως ἔχει. ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἀλήθεια αὕτη ὀνομάζεται καὶ τῶν ἀληθῶν ἁπάντων πρώτη αἰτία ἐστίν.
ὁ μὲν οὖν ἑκὼν ψευδόμενος ἀσεβεῖ, καθόσον ἐξαπατῶν ἀδικεῖ· ὁ δὲ ἄκων, καθόσον διαφωνεῖ τῇ τῶν ὅλων φύσει καὶ καθόσον ἀκοσμεῖ μαχόμενος τῇ τοῦ κόσμου φύσει· μάχεται γὰρ ὁ ἐπὶ τἀναντία τοῖς ἀληθέσι φερόμενος παρ’ ἑαυτόν· ἀφορμὰς γὰρ προειλήφει παρὰ τῆς φύσεως, ὧν ἀμελήσας οὐχ οἷός τέ ἐστι νῦν διακρίνειν τὰ ψευδῆ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀληθῶν. καὶ μὴν ὁ τὰς ἡδονὰς ὡς ἀγαθὰ διώκων, τοὺς δὲ πόνους ὡς κακὰ φεύγων ἀσεβεῖ· ἀνάγκη γὰρ τὸν τοιοῦτον μέμφεσθαι πολλάκις τῇ κοινῇ φύσει ὡς παῤ ἀξίαν τι ἀπονεμούσῃ τοῖς φαύλοις καὶ τοῖς σπουδαίοις, διὰ τὸ πολλάκις τοὺς μὲν φαύλους ἐν ἡδοναῖς εἶναι καὶ τὰ ποιητικὰ τούτων κτᾶσθαι, τοὺς δὲ σπουδαίους πόνῳ καὶ τοῖς ποιητικοῖς τούτου περιπίπτειν.
ἔτι δὲ ὁ φοβούμενος τοὺς πόνους φοβηθήσεταί ποτε καὶ τῶν ἐσομένων τι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, τοῦτο δὲ ἤδη ἀσεβές· ὅ τε διώκων τὰς ἡδονὰς οὐκ ἀφέξεται τοῦ ἀδικεῖν, τοῦτο δὲ ἐναργῶς ἀσεβές· χρὴ δὲ πρὸς ἃ ἡ κοινὴ φύσις ἐπίσης ἔχει (οὐ γὰρ ἀμφότερα ἂν ἐποίει, εἰ μὴ πρὸς ἀμφότερα ἐπίσης εἶχε), πρὸς ταῦτα καὶ τοὺς τῇ φύσει βουλομένους ἕπεσθαι, ὁμογνώμονας ὄντας, ἐπίσης διακεῖσθαι· ὅστις οὖν πρὸς πόνον καὶ ἡδονὴν ἢ θάνατον καὶ ζωὴν ἢ δόξαν καὶ ἀδοξίαν, οἷς ἐπίσης ἡ τῶν ὅλων φύσις χρῆται, αὐτὸς οὐκ ἐπίσης ἔχει, δῆλον ὡς ἀσεβεῖ.
λέγω δὲ τὸ χρῆσθαι τούτοις ἐπίσης τὴν κοινὴν φύσιν ἀντὶ τοῦ συμβαίνειν ἐπίσης κατὰ τὸ ἑξῆς τοῖς γινομένοις καὶ ἐπιγινομένοις ὁρμῇ τινι ἀρχαίᾳ τῆς προνοίας, καθ’ ἣν ἀπό τινος ἀρχῆς ὥρμησεν ἐπὶ τήνδε τὴν διακόσμησιν, συλλαβοῦσά τινας λόγους τῶν ἐσομένων καὶ δυνάμεις γονίμους ἀφορίσασα ὑποστάσεών τε καὶ μεταβολῶν καὶ διαδοχῶν τοιούτων.
Whoever acts unjustly is impious. For the nature of the whole has formed rational living beings for one another, to benefit one another according to worth and do no harm. Whoever transgresses her will is plainly impious toward the eldest of the gods. Whoever lies is also impious toward this same goddess. For the nature of the whole is the nature of things that are, and things that are have an affinity with everything that exists. She is also called truth, and is the first cause of all true things.
Whoever lies willingly, then, is impious insofar as deception does injustice; whoever lies unwillingly, insofar as they are out of tune with the nature of the whole and disturb order by fighting the nature of the cosmos. For whoever is carried, through their own fault, toward what is contrary to truth fights against it. They had received resources from nature in advance, but neglected them and now cannot distinguish false things from true. And whoever pursues pleasures as goods and flees pains as evils is impious. Such a person must often blame universal nature for making distributions to bad and good people contrary to worth, because the bad often live in pleasure and acquire its causes, while the good encounter pain and its causes.
Further, whoever fears pains will at some time fear something that is to happen in the cosmos, and that is already impious. Whoever pursues pleasures will not refrain from injustice, and that is plainly impious. Those who wish to follow nature, sharing her judgment, must be equally disposed toward things to which universal nature is equally disposed—for she would not produce both if she were not equally disposed toward both. Whoever, then, is not themselves equally disposed toward pain and pleasure, death and life, reputation and disrepute, which the nature of the whole uses equally, is plainly impious.
When I say that universal nature uses these equally, I mean that they occur equally in the sequence of things that come to be and follow upon them, through a certain original impulse of providence. In accordance with it, from some beginning she set out toward this ordering of the cosmos, having conceived certain rational principles of what would be and marked out powers fertile in such existences, changes, and successions.
Commentary
Justice, truth, and the valuation of external events are brought under one religious obligation. The opening identifies injustice as an offense against nature because rational beings were formed to help one another. Falsehood violates the same order, first through deception and then through neglected powers of discrimination. Pleasure and pain enter the argument when their treatment as good and evil turns unequal fortunes into an accusation against providence. The final explanation of nature’s equal use concerns the production and succession of events; it does not erase the distinction between just and unjust conduct on which the chapter began.
9.1.1 Nature is a divine authority within the opening argument, not merely an impersonal regularity. The feminine pronouns, divine seniority, will, and identification with truth make the religious framing explicit. The affinity between things that are and things that exist supports the conjunction of truth and nature, but its exact metaphysical formulation is compressed. The two English descriptions keep the relation visible without constructing a new distinction between two technical classes of being.
9.1.2 Unwilling falsehood is connected to prior neglect, rather than simply equated with deliberate deception. The two cases receive separate explanations. Intentional lying is unjust because it deceives; unintentional error is linked to failing to cultivate natural resources for discrimination. The argument is severe, but its stated causal chain should remain visible instead of being replaced by a blanket claim that every factual mistake has the same motive.
9.1.3, 9.1.4 Equal disposition toward external opposites does not require indifference between justice and injustice. Pain and pleasure, death and life, reputation and disrepute form the explicit list. Their occurrence in the providential sequence supports the demand for equal disposition. Injustice, by contrast, remains the offense with which the chapter opens, so extending the list to moral opposites would undo the argument’s own distinction.
9.2
Χαριεστέρου μὲν ἦν ἀνδρός, ἄγευστον ψευδολογίας καὶ πάσης ὑποκρίσεως καὶ τρυφῆς καὶ τύφου γενόμενον ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀπελθεῖν. τὸ δ’ οὖν κορεσθέντα γε τούτων ἀποπνεῦσαι δεύτερος πλοῦς. ἢ προῄρησαι προσκαθῆσθαι τῇ κακίᾳ καὶ οὔπω σε οὐδὲ ἡ πεῖρα πείθει φεύγειν ἐκ τοῦ λοιμοῦ; λοιμὸς γὰρ διαφθορὰ διανοίας πολλῷ γε μᾶλλον ἤπερ ἡ τοῦ περικεχυμένου τούτου πνεύματος τοιάδε τις δυσκρασία καὶ τροπή· αὕτη μὲν γὰρ ζῴων λοιμός, καθὸ ζῷά ἐστιν, ἐκείνη δὲ ἀνθρώπων,καθὸ ἄνθρωποί εἰσιν.
It would have belonged to a finer man to leave humankind without ever having tasted falsehood, every kind of pretense, luxury, or conceit. Still, to breathe your last at least sated with these is a second voyage. Or have you chosen to sit beside vice, and does even experience not yet persuade you to flee the plague? For corruption of the mind is far more a plague than any such unhealthy mixture or alteration of the breath poured around us. That is a plague of living beings insofar as they are living beings; the other is a plague of human beings insofar as they are human.
Commentary
The plague comparison distinguishes corruption of human judgment from damage to animal life. The speaker admits a distance between an unstained life and his available second course. Satiety with vice can still motivate departure from its company. The contrast between two plagues intensifies the claim: bodily infection threatens what humans share with other animals, while corrupted thought damages the capacity that the passage treats as specifically human. This is a hierarchy within the moral argument, not a description of a particular epidemic.
9.2.1 The second voyage is an acknowledged fallback after the first course has failed. The nautical expression keeps an image that ordinary English second best would lose. LSJ records its proverbial use for another course when the first is unavailable, with the image of rowing after a failed wind. Here the contrast is between never tasting vice and at least becoming sated with it; no second literal journey is being narrated.
9.3
Μὴ καταφρόνει θανάτου, ἀλλὰ εὐαρέστει αὐτῷ, ὡς καὶ τούτου ἑνὸς ὄντος ὧν ἡ φύσις ἐθέλει. οἷον γάρ ἐστι τὸ νεάσαι καὶ τὸ γηρᾶσαι, καὶ τὸ αὐξῆσαι καὶ τὸ ἀκμάσαι, καὶ ὀδόντας καὶ γένειον καὶ πολιὰς ἐνεγκεῖν, καὶ σπεῖραι καὶ κυοφορῆσαι καὶ ἀποκυῆσαι, καὶ τὰ ἄλλα φυσικὰ ἐνεργήματα ὅσα αἱ τοῦ βίου ὧραι φέρουσι, τοιοῦτο καὶ τὸ διαλυθῆναι. τοῦτο μὲν οὖν κατὰ ἄνθρωπόν ἐστι λελογισμένον, μὴ ὁλοσχερῶς μηδὲ ὠστικῶς μηδὲ ὑπερηφάνως πρὸς τὸν θάνατον ἔχειν ἀλλὰ περιμένειν ὡς μίαν τῶν φυσικῶν ἐνεργειῶν, καὶ ὡς νῦν περιμένεις πότε ἔμβρυον ἐκ τῆς γαστρὸς τῆς γυναικός σου ἐξέλθῃ, οὕτως ἐκδέχεσθαι τὴν ὥραν ἐν ᾗ τὸ ψυχάριόν σου τοῦ ἐλύτρου τούτου ἐκπεσεῖται.
εἰ δὲ καὶ ἰδιωτικὸν παράπηγμα ἁψικάρδιον θέλεις, μάλιστά σε εὔκολον πρὸς τὸν θάνατον ποιήσει ἡ ἐπίστασις ἡ ἐπὶ τὰ ὑποκείμενα, ὧν μέλλεις ἀφίστασθαι, καὶ μεθ’ ἠθῶν οὐκέτι ἔσται ἡ . . . ἐμπεφυρμένη. προσκόπτεσθαι μὲν γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἥκιστα δεῖ, ἀλλὰ καὶ κήδεσθαι καὶ πρᾴως φέρειν, μεμνῆσθαι μέντοι ὅτι οὐκ ἀπ’ ἀνθρώπων ὁμοδογματούντων σοι ἡ ἀπαλλαγὴ ἔσται. τοῦτο γὰρ μόνον, εἴπερ ἄρα, ἀνθεῖλκεν ἂν καὶ κατεῖχεν ἐν τῷ ζῆν, εἰ συζῆν ἐφεῖτο τοῖς τὰ αὐτὰ δόγματα περιπεποιημένοις· νῦν δ’ ὁρᾷς ὅσος ὁ κόπος ἐν τῇ διαφωνίᾳ τῆς συμβιώσεως, ὥστε εἰπεῖν· θᾶττον ἔλθοις, ὦ θάνατε, μή που καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπιλάθωμαι ἐμαυτοῦ.
Do not despise death, but be content with it, since this too is one of the things nature wishes. For as it is to be young and to grow old, to grow and to reach maturity, to produce teeth, a beard, and gray hairs, to sow seed, carry a child, and give birth, and perform all the other natural activities that life's seasons bring, so it is to be dissolved. It belongs, then, to a reasoning human being not to face death heedlessly, or impetuously, or arrogantly, but to wait for it as one of nature's activities. Just as you now wait for the time when the child will come out of your wife's belly, so await the hour when your little soul will fall out of this sheath.
If you also want an ordinary reminder that touches the heart, what will most ease you toward death is to consider the things you are about to leave, and the characters with which ⟨the subject is missing in the text⟩ will no longer be entangled. You should be as little offended by them as possible, but should care for them and bear with them gently. Yet remember that your departure will not be from people who share your doctrines. That alone, if anything, would pull you back and hold you in life: if you were allowed to live with people who had acquired the same doctrines. But now you see how great the toil is in the discord of living together, enough to say: come sooner, death, lest I too forget myself.
Commentary
Readiness for death is tested both by bodily change and by the difficulty of living with others. Birth, maturity, reproduction, and dissolution are placed within one natural sequence. Waiting, rather than theatrical contempt or haste, defines the first response. The second section offers a rougher emotional aid: departure releases the speaker from disagreement. Yet its permission to feel relief is constrained by an explicit demand for care and gentleness. The final appeal for death exposes anxiety about losing his own character; it does not revoke the earlier instruction to wait.
9.3.1 Impetuosity is one of the manners of meeting death that the passage rejects. The pushing force of ὠστικός and the related sense of impetuosity recorded by LSJ suit the contrast with waiting. This qualification matters because the section’s final comparison imagines the soul leaving its covering as a child leaves the womb. The image concerns a natural transition; neither the lexicon nor the comparison establishes a timetable or a doctrine of personal survival.
9.3.2 The subject of the entanglement clause is absent from the printed text as well as the digital pin. Leopold prints a gap after the feminine article and records supplements naming soul or life here. The English notice declines to choose between them. This absence leaves the grammatical subject unsettled, while the following demands for care and gentleness are intact. An account of the chapter should therefore not cite a supplied soul as if the source itself named it.
9.4
Ὁ ἁμαρτάνων ἑαυτῷ ἁμαρτάνει· ὁ ἀδικῶν ἑαυτὸν ἀδικεῖ, ἑαυτὸν, ἑαυτὸν κακὸν ποιῶν.
Whoever does wrong wrongs themselves. Whoever acts unjustly does injustice to themselves—themselves—by making themselves bad.
Commentary
Injustice damages its agent by making that agent morally worse. The maxim redirects attention from what the wrongdoer acquires or inflicts to what the action makes of the doer. The explanatory participle supplies the reason for calling injustice an injury to oneself. The extra reflexive retained in the digital source and English cannot safely be treated as an intentional rhetorical intensification, since the corresponding printed text lacks it.
9.4.1 The isolated extra reflexive is an apparent digital duplication, not secure evidence of deliberate repetition. The printed sentence contains the reflexive required with injustice and the reflexive required with making oneself bad, but lacks the intervening isolated repetition in the pin. The current English retains that extra item pending review. Its presence documents fidelity to the digital source; it should not generate a literary argument about Marcus intensifying the maxim through a third reflexive.
9.5
Ἀδικεῖ πολλάκις ὁ μὴ ποιῶν τι, οὐ μόνον ὁ ποιῶν τι.
Often someone acts unjustly by not doing something, not only by doing something.
Commentary
Failure to act can itself constitute injustice. The qualification often matters: the maxim does not condemn every omission. It denies that innocence follows merely from having done nothing. Read alongside the preceding claim about the agent’s moral injury, it makes neglected obligations relevant to that injury as well as positive wrongdoing.
9.6
Ἀρκεῖ ἡ παροῦσα ὑπόληψις καταληπτικὴ καὶ ἡ παροῦσα πρᾶξις κοινωνικὴ καὶ ἡ παροῦσα διάθεσις εὐαρεστικὴ πρὸς πᾶν τὸ παρὰ τῆς ἐκτὸς αἰτίας συμβαῖνον.
It is enough that the present judgment grasp its object, that the present action serve social fellowship, and that the present disposition be content with everything that happens through the external cause.
Commentary
Sufficiency is defined through three present responsibilities rather than possession of a favorable situation. Judgment must apprehend its object, action must serve fellowship, and disposition must meet what arrives from outside. Repeating the present in all three clauses limits the exercise to what can be done now. Contentment governs the external event; it is not a substitute for the social quality required of one’s own action.
9.6.1 The adjective attached to judgment concerns apprehension of its object. LSJ distinguishes the cognitive use of καταληπτικός from its other sense of checking or restraining. The present translation expresses an object-directed act rather than mere certainty of feeling. The short requirement does not by itself prove that any confident judgment meets the condition.
9.7
Ἐξαλεῖψαι φαντασίαν· στῆσαι ὁρμήν· σβέσαι ὄρεξιν· ἐφ’ ἑαυτῷ ἔχειν τὸ ἡγεμονικόν.
Erase an impression. Check an impulse. Quench a desire. Keep the ruling faculty under your own authority.
Commentary
The four instructions interrupt a developing response and return authority to the ruling faculty. An impression, an impulse, and a desire are named separately before the final demand for self-command. The terse sequence can function as an interruption drill, but gives no detailed theory of how these movements arise. Its force must be read alongside the neighboring positive standards for judgment and social action: checking an impulse is not the book’s entire account of what to do.
9.7.1 Interruption and positive social action are complementary exercises in the adjacent passages. Reading the four compact instructions in isolation can make the desired life seem an indefinite suppression of response. The preceding section gives the constructive tests for judging and acting, while 9.12 later permits both motion and restraint. These are internal comparisons about function, not evidence that the passages were composed as one continuous lesson.
9.8
Εἰς μὲν τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα μία ψυχὴ διῄρηται, εἰς δὲ τὰ λογικὰ μία νοερὰ ψυχὴ μεμέρισται, ὥσπερ καὶ μία γῆ ἐστιν ἁπάντων τῶν γεωδῶν καὶ ἑνὶ φωτὶ ὁρῶμεν καὶ ἕνα ἀέρα ἀναπνέομεν, ὅσα ὁρατικὰ καὶ ἔμψυχα.
One soul is divided among irrational living beings; one intelligent soul is distributed among rational beings. So too there is one earth for everything earthy, and all of us who see and are alive see by one light and breathe one air.
Commentary
The shared basis of life challenges the appearance of isolated individuals. The passage moves from kinds of soul to common earth, light, and air. Its repeated singulars make plurality depend on something shared without claiming that rational and nonrational life have identical capacities. The physical examples help render the distribution of soul imaginable; they do not themselves demonstrate its metaphysical status.
9.9
Πάντα ὅσα κοινοῦ τινος μετέχει πρὸς τὸ ὁμογενὲς σπεύδει. τὸ γεῶδες πᾶν ῥέπει ἐπὶ γῆν· τὸ ὑγρὸν πᾶν σύρρουν· τὸ ἀερῶδες ὁμοίως, ὥστε χρῄζειν τῶν διειργόντων καὶ βίας· τὸ πῦρ ἀνωφερὲς μὲν διὰ τὸ στοιχειῶδες πῦρ, παντὶ δὲ πυρὶ ἐνταῦθα πρὸς τὸ συνεξάπτεσθαι ἕτοιμον οὕτως, ὥστε καὶ πᾶν τὸ ὑλικὸν τὸ ὀλίγῳ ξηρότερον εὐέξαπτον εἶναι διὰ τὸ ἔλαττον ἐγκεκρᾶσθαι αὐτῷ τὸ κωλυτικὸν πρὸς ἔξαψιν. καὶ τοίνυν πᾶν τὸ κοινῆς νοερᾶς φύσεως μέτοχον πρὸς τὸ συγγενὲς ὁμοίως σπεύδει ἢ καὶ μᾶλλον· ὅσῳ γάρ ἐστι κρεῖττον παρὰ τὰ ἄλλα, τοσούτῳ καὶ πρὸς τὸ συγκιρνᾶσθαι τῷ οἰκείῳ καὶ συγχεῖσθαι ἑτοιμότερον.
εὐθὺς γοῦν ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ἀλόγων εὑρέθη σμήνη καὶ ἀγέλαι καὶ νεοσσοτροφίαι καὶ οἷον ἔρωτες· ψυχαὶ γὰρ ἤδη ἦσαν ἐνταῦθα καὶ τὸ συναγωγὸν ἐν τῷ κρείττονι ἐπιτεινόμενον εὑρίσκετο, οἷον οὔτε ἐπὶ φυτῶν ἦν οὔτε ἐπὶ λίθων ἢ ξύλων. ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν λογικῶν ζῴων πολιτεῖαι καὶ φιλίαι καὶ οἶκοι καὶ σύλλογοι καὶ ἐν πολέμοις συνθῆκαι καὶ ἀνοχαί. ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἔτι κρειττόνων καὶ ἐκ διεστηκότων τρόπον τινὰ ἕνωσις ὑπέστη οἵα ἐπὶ τῶν ἄστρων· οὕτως ἡ ἐπὶ τὸ κρεῖττον ἐπανάβασις συμπάθειαν καὶ ἐν διεστῶσιν ἐργάσασθαι ἐδύνατο.
ὅρα οὖν τὸ νῦν γινόμενον· μόνα γὰρ τὰ νοερὰ νῦν ἐπιλέλησται τῆς πρὸς ἄλληλα σπουδῆς καὶ συννεύσεως καὶ τὸ σύρρουν ὧδε μόνον οὐ βλέπεται. ἀλλ’ ὅμως καίτοι φεύγοντες περικαταλαμβάνονται· κρατεῖ γὰρ ἡ φύσις. ὄψει δὲ ὃ λέγω παραφυλάσσων· θᾶσσον γοῦν εὕροι τις ἂν γεῶδές τι μηδενὸς γεώδους προσαπτόμενον ἤπερ ἄνθρωπον ἀνθρώπου ἀπεσχισμένον.
Everything that shares in something common hastens toward its own kind. Everything earthy inclines toward earth; everything liquid flows together. The same holds for air, so that barriers and force are needed to separate it. Fire tends upward because of the elemental fire, yet it is so ready to catch fire together with every fire here that any material a little drier is readily combustible, since less of what prevents ignition is mixed into it. So too everything that shares in a common intelligent nature hastens toward its kind in the same way, or still more. The better it is than the others, the readier it is to blend and mingle with what is its own.
At once, then, among irrational animals there appeared swarms, herds, care for nestlings, and a kind of love. For here there were already souls, and in the better being the power of drawing together was found to be intensified, in a way that it was not in plants or stones or wood. Among rational living beings there appeared civic communities, friendships, households, associations, and, in wars, treaties and truces. Among still better beings a kind of union arose even across separation, as with the stars. So the ascent toward what is better could produce shared feeling even among things apart.
Look, then, at what is happening now. Intelligent beings alone have now forgotten their eagerness for one another and their inclination toward one another; here alone flowing together is not seen. Yet even in flight they are overtaken, for nature prevails. Watch closely and you will see what I mean: you would sooner find something earthy touching nothing earthy than a human being cut off from a human being.
Commentary
Natural affinity supplies an argument for fellowship that human resistance cannot finally abolish. The long ascent passes from elemental convergence through animal association to civic institutions and stellar union. Each step is meant to strengthen the tendency toward connection as the beings considered become better. Human estrangement then appears as a contradiction within that hierarchy. The close does not say that people always cooperate well; it claims that even their attempts to separate cannot cancel dependence on others.
9.9.1, 9.9.2, 9.9.3 Union across distance completes an ancient hierarchy of affinity rather than a modern physical explanation. Animal care, civic arrangements, and the stars supply successively stronger examples of connection. Treaties and truces are especially revealing because cooperation appears even within war. The stellar example then allows separation in space to coexist with sympathy. The argument’s hierarchy and cosmology should remain visible instead of being translated into a current theory of social networks or physical forces.
9.10
Φέρει καρπὸν καὶ ἄνθρωπος καὶ θεὸς καὶ ὁ κόσμος· ἐν ταῖς οἰκείαις ὥραις ἕκαστα φέρει. εἰ δὲ ἡ συνήθεια κυρίως τέτριφεν ἐπὶ ἀμπέλου καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων, οὐδὲν τοῦτο. ὁ λόγος δὲ καὶ κοινὸν καὶ ἴδιον καρπὸν ἔχει καὶ γίνεται ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοιαῦθ’ ἕτερα, ὁποῖόν τι αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ λόγος.
A human being bears fruit, and a god, and the cosmos. Each bears it in its own seasons. If ordinary usage has especially confined the expression to a vine and things like it, that is nothing. Reason bears fruit both common and particular, and other things of the same kind come from it as reason itself is.
Commentary
The fruit metaphor makes rational activity productive without confining its yield to private reward. Ordinary speech restricts fruit to plants, but the speaker deliberately extends it to humans, gods, and the cosmos. The closing claim that reason produces things like itself directs attention to the character of its effects. Common and particular remain paired without an explanation of precisely how their scopes divide; assigning them fixed institutional or personal beneficiaries would exceed the sentence.
9.10.1 Common and particular fruit remain deliberately broad in the present English. The paired adjectives qualify what reason yields, but the sentence does not specify one public institution and one private beneficiary. The continuation says that the products resemble their rational source. Interpreting the pair as shared and individual effects is possible, while fixing it as a complete theory of distributive benefit would be stronger than the text.
9.11
Εἰ μὲν δύνασαι, μεταδίδασκε· εἰ δὲ μή, μέμνησο ὅτι πρὸς τοῦτο ἡ εὐμένειά σοι δέδοται. καὶ οἱ θεοὶ δὲ εὐμενεῖς τοῖς τοιούτοις εἰσίν, εἰς ἔνια δὲ καὶ συνεργοῦσιν, εἰς ὑγίειαν, εἰς πλοῦτον, εἰς δόξαν· οὕτως εἰσὶ χρηστοί. ἔξεστι δὲ καὶ σοί· ἢ εἰπέ, τίς ὁ κωλύων;
If you can, teach them differently. If you cannot, remember that goodwill was given you for this. The gods too show goodwill toward such people, and in some things even work with them: in health, wealth, and reputation. So good are they. You can do the same. Or tell me: who prevents you?
Commentary
Goodwill remains required when correction is beyond one’s power. Teaching differently is the first option, but its failure does not authorize hostility. Divine help toward people who need correction models a generosity extending even to health, wealth, and reputation. These external benefits are examples of assistance, not a reclassification of them as moral goods. The final question turns from judging the recipient to locating any genuine obstacle to the speaker’s own kindness.
9.12
Πόνει μὴ ὡς ἄθλιος μηδὲ ὡς ἐλεεῖσθαι ἢ θαυμάζεσθαι θέλων, ἀλλὰ μόνον ἓν θέλε· κινεῖσθαι καὶ ἴσχεσθαι, ὡς ὁ πολιτικὸς λόγος ἀξιοῖ.
Toil neither as someone miserable nor as one who wants pity or admiration. Want just one thing: to move and to hold still as civic reason requires.
Commentary
Civic reason governs restraint as well as exertion. Toil can become a performance designed to attract pity or admiration. The passage removes both audiences and replaces them with one criterion for moving or remaining still. Because both action and restraint answer to that criterion, visible busyness is not enough to establish that the speaker is doing his task.
9.13
Σήμερον ἐξῆλθον πάσης περιστάσεως, μᾶλλον δὲ ἐξέβαλον πᾶσαν περίστασιν· ἔξω γὰρ οὐκ ἦν, ἀλλὰ ἔνδον ἐν ταῖς ὑπολήψεσιν.
Today I escaped every difficult circumstance—or rather, I cast out every difficult circumstance. For it was not outside, but within, in my judgments.
Commentary
The correction of the opening sentence relocates the difficulty in judgment. At first the speaker describes himself as escaping a circumstance. He then revises the verb so that he expels it, explaining that the disturbance was within his judgments. The rhetorical correction performs the change of standpoint it recommends. It need not imply that no external event happened; its point concerns the place where that event became an enclosing predicament.
9.14
Πάντα ταῦτα συνήθη μὲν τῇ πείρᾳ, ἐφήμερα δὲ τῷ χρόνῳ, ῥυπαρὰ δὲ τῇ ὕλῃ· πάντα νῦν οἷα ἐπ’ ἐκείνων οὓς κατεθάψαμεν.
All these things are familiar in experience, short-lived in time, dirty in their material. Everything now is as it was in the days of those we buried.
Commentary
Familiarity, brevity, and material baseness work together against inflated valuation. The three descriptions examine events by experience, duration, and substance. Recalling the buried then connects those abstractions to a remembered human generation. The comparison makes the present less exceptional, while the deliberately dirty language supplies emotional pressure that a neutral account of impermanence would lack.
9.15
Τὰ πράγματα ἔξω θυρῶν ἕστηκεν αὐτὰ ἐφ’ ἑαυτῶν, μηδὲν μήτε εἰδότα περὶ αὑτῶν μήτε ἀποφαινόμενα. τί οὖν ἀποφαίνεται περὶ αὐτῶν; τὸ ἡγεμονικόν.
Things stand outside the doors, on their own, neither knowing anything about themselves nor declaring anything. What, then, declares something about them? The ruling faculty.
Commentary
An event and the judgment made about it are represented as different agents. Things are imagined waiting outside a door, unable either to know or to pronounce upon themselves. The question then names the ruling faculty as the source of pronouncement. This personification isolates the act of evaluation without requiring the reader to deny that external things have causal effects.
9.16
Οὐκ ἐν πείσει ἀλλ’ ἐνεργείᾳ τὸ τοῦ λογικοῦ ⟨καὶ⟩ πολιτικοῦ ζῴου κακὸν καὶ ἀγαθόν, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ ἡ ἀρετὴ καὶ κακία αὐτοῦ ἐν πείσει ἀλλὰ ἐνεργείᾳ.
The evil and good of a rational and civic living being lie in activity, not in what it undergoes; so too its virtue and vice lie in activity, not in what it undergoes.
Commentary
Moral value belongs to the exercise of rational and civic agency rather than to what happens to it. The repetition transfers the same contrast from good and evil to virtue and vice. Naming the creature civic prevents activity from meaning mere private self-assertion. The passage makes a claim about moral assessment; it does not imply that undergoing pain or loss is unreal.
9.16.1 The opposition to activity identifies πείσει with undergoing, not persuasion. The clause repeats the same grammatical opposition in its account of virtue and vice. That parallel supplies the local reason for the English wording. The civic adjective also remains integral to the kind of creature being evaluated; retaining it prevents the maxim from becoming a claim about action with no social direction.
9.17
Τῷ ἀναρριφέντι λίθῳ οὐδὲν κακὸν τὸ κατενεχθῆναι οὐδὲ ἀγαθὸν τὸ ἀνενεχθῆναι.
For a stone thrown up, falling is no evil and rising is no good.
Commentary
The thrown stone exposes the mistake of treating direction as value. Ascent and descent reverse one another physically without becoming benefit and injury to the stone. The miniature example removes the evaluative force commonly attached to up and down. Applying it to human fortunes remains an analogy: it does not turn a stone into a model of rational choice.
9.18
Δίελθε ἔσω ἔσω εἰς τὰ ἡγεμονικὰ αὐτῶν καὶ ὄψει τίνας κριτὰς φοβῇ, οἵους καὶ περὶ αὑτῶν ὄντας κριτάς.
Go inward, inward into their ruling faculties, and you will see what judges you fear, and what sort of judges they are even of themselves.
Commentary
Fear of reputation weakens when the feared judges are themselves examined. The repeated inward direction presses past public authority or confidence to the quality of the evaluator. Their judgment of themselves becomes evidence relevant to the authority assigned to their judgment of someone else. The exercise invites scrutiny, not the automatic conclusion that every critic is wrong.
9.19
Πάντα ἐν μεταβολῇ· καὶ αὐτὸς σὺ ἐν διηνεκεῖ ἀλλοιώσει καὶ κατά τι φθορᾷ, καὶ ὁ κόσμος δὲ ὅλος.
Everything is in change. You yourself are continually altering and, in some respect, decaying; so too is the whole cosmos.
Commentary
The observer cannot place personal identity outside the process of change. The universal claim is immediately applied to the speaker and then to the whole cosmos. The qualification in some respect keeps decay from becoming a claim that the entire person has already ceased to exist. Change is continuous even while a person can still speak of a present self.
9.20
Τὸ ἄλλου ἁμάρτημα ἐκεῖ δεῖ καταλιπεῖν.
Another person's fault must be left there.
Commentary
Another person’s fault should not be reproduced within one’s own response. The spatial adverb leaves the wrongdoing with its agent. In the book’s repeated distinction between another’s act and one’s own judgment, the instruction can restrain retaliatory anger. It does not supply grounds for refusing every corrective or helpful action, which the book elsewhere explicitly permits.
9.21
Ἐνεργείας ἀπόληξις, ὁρμῆς, ὑπολήψεως παῦλα καὶ οἷον θάνατος· οὐδὲν κακόν. μέτιθι νῦν ἐπὶ ἡλικίαν, οἷον τὴν παιδικήν, τὴν τοῦ μειρακίου, τὴν νεότητα, τὸ γῆρας· καὶ γὰρ τούτων πᾶσα μεταβολή, θάνατος· μήτι δεινόν; μέτιθι νῦν ἐπὶ βίον τὸν ὑπὸ τῷ πάππῳ, εἶτα τὸν ὑπὸ τῇ μητρί, εἶτα τὸν ὑπὸ τῷ πατρί, καὶ ἄλλας δὲ πολλὰς διαφθορὰς καὶ μεταβολὰς καὶ ἀπολήξεις εὑρίσκων ἐπερώτα σεαυτόν· μήτι δεινόν; οὕτως τοίνυν οὐδὲ ἡ τοῦ ὅλου σου βίου λῆξις καὶ παῦλα καὶ μεταβολή.
The ending of an activity, the stopping and, as it were, death of an impulse or a judgment: no evil. Now pass on to stages of life—childhood, boyhood, youth, old age. Every change in these too is a death. Anything terrible? Now pass on to life under your grandfather, then under your mother, then under your father. As you find many other dissolutions, changes, and endings, ask yourself: anything terrible? So neither is the ending, stopping, and change of your whole life.
Commentary
The cessation of a whole life is approached through endings already undergone. The exercise widens from an activity to stages of growth and then to distinct periods under family authority. Each move asks the same evaluative question, drawing the final ending into a familiar pattern. The argument is analogical: ordinary transitions make death less alien without establishing that consciousness continues after it.
9.21.1 The family sequence need not be expanded into an unverified chronology. Grandfather, mother, and father are named as successive periods to examine. The present passage does not supply names or distinguish biological from adoptive relationships. Its argument needs remembered changes of life, not a reconstruction of their dates; inserting identities would add historical claims that the sentence itself does not establish.
9.22
Τρέχε ἐπὶ τὸ σεαυτοῦ ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ τὸ τοῦ ὅλου καὶ τὸ τούτου. τὸ μὲν σεαυτοῦ, ἵνα νοῦν δικαικὸν αὐτὸ ποιήσῃς· τὸ δὲ τοῦ ὅλου, ἵνα συμμνημονεύσῃς τίνος μέρος εἶ· τὸ δὲ τούτου, ἵνα ἐπιστήσῃς πότερον ἄγνοια ἢ γνώμη, καὶ ἅμα λογίσῃ ὅτι συγγενές.
Run to your own ruling faculty, to that of the whole, and to this person's. To your own, to make it a just mind; to that of the whole, to recall at the same time what you are a part of; to this person's, to learn whether it is ignorance or deliberate judgment, and at the same time to reckon that it is akin to you.
Commentary
Attention to self, cosmos, and another person gives moral correction three different objects. The speaker must make his own mind just, remember his membership in the whole, and distinguish ignorance from deliberation in another. Kinship accompanies the last inquiry and prevents explanation from becoming a method of exclusion. The passage directs different questions to each ruling faculty rather than dissolving them into one undifferentiated mind.
9.22.1 The aim of examining one’s own ruling faculty is specifically justice. The uncommon adjective is supported by the justice-oriented sense recorded under δικαϊκός in LSJ. It does not merely ask for mental efficiency or composure. The parallel examination of the other person adds kinship even while distinguishing ignorance from intention, so diagnostic clarity must coexist with an ethical relation.
9.23
Ὥσπερ αὐτὸς σὺ πολιτικοῦ συστήματος συμπληρωτικὸς εἶ, οὕτως καὶ πᾶσα πρᾶξίς σου συμπληρωτικὴ ἔστω ζωῆς πολιτικῆς. ἥτις ἐὰν οὖν πρᾶξίς σου μὴ ἔχῃ τὴν ἀναφοράν, εἴτε προσεχῶς εἴτε πόρρωθεν, ἐπὶ τὸ κοινωνικὸν τέλος, αὕτη διασπᾷ τὸν βίον καὶ οὐκ ἐᾷ ἕνα εἶναι καὶ στασιώδης ἐστίν, ὥσπερ ἐν δήμῳ ὁ τὸ καθ’ αὑτὸν μέρος διιστάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς τοιαύτης συμφωνίας.
Just as you yourself help complete a civic system, let every action of yours help complete civic life. Any action of yours that does not refer, closely or remotely, to the end of social fellowship tears life apart, prevents it from being one, and is seditious—like someone in an assembly who separates their own part from such agreement.
Commentary
Every action is answerable to a common end, though its contribution may be indirect. The speaker’s membership in a civic system becomes the measure for each act. A disconnected act fragments the agent’s own life as well as the association it fails to serve. The assembly comparison dramatizes that rupture as faction, while the allowance for distant reference keeps the demand from requiring an immediately visible public benefit in every action.
9.23.1 A remote relation to the common end still counts as a relation. The close-or-distant qualification matters for interpreting the demand placed on every act. The passage does not require all beneficial contributions to take the form of immediate public intervention. What it condemns is an action detached from the common end, described through the political image of faction.
9.24
Παιδίων ὀργαὶ καὶ παίγνια, καὶ ʽπνευμάτια νεκροὺς βαστάζονταʼ, ὥστε ἐναργέστερον προσπεσεῖν τὸ τῆς Νεκυίας.
Children's angers and games, and ‘little breaths carrying corpses,’ so that the scene from the Nekyia strikes one more vividly.
Commentary
The grotesque image of animated corpses makes ordinary conflict appear small and mortal. Childish anger and play lead into a quoted image of little breaths bearing dead bodies. The final reference to a Nekyia is meant to make that conjunction more vivid. Since the passage names neither author nor precise episode, the commentary can explain its mortality effect without supplying a particular literary source as certain.
9.24.1 Nekyia does not securely identify a particular author or episode here. The title and the corpse image connect the reference with an encounter with the dead, but the Greek leaves what is evoked compressed in a neuter expression. The English scene is an interpretive expansion of that expression, not an identification of its literary source. A commentary should preserve the open attribution rather than silently choosing Homer or another author.
9.25
Ἴθι ἐπὶ τὴν ποιότητα τοῦ αἰτίου καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὑλικοῦ αὐτὸ περιγράψας θέασαι· εἶτα καὶ τὸν χρόνον περιόρισον, ὅσον πλεῖστον ὑφίστασθαι πέφυκε τοῦτο τὸ ἰδίως ποιόν.
Go to the character of the cause, and examine it after marking it off from the material. Then also set a limit to the time for which this thing with its particular character can naturally last, at the most.
Commentary
Analysis separates constitution from duration so that neither can sustain an exaggerated valuation. First the active cause is distinguished from its material; then the particular thing is assigned the longest span it could naturally have. Taking the upper limit, rather than only an early failure, subjects even its fullest possible endurance to scrutiny. The concise exercise does not explain a complete technical taxonomy of causes.
9.26
Ἀνέτλης μύρια διὰ τὸ μὴ ἀρκεῖσθαι τῷ σῷ ἡγεμονικῷ ποιοῦντι ταῦτα, οἷα κατεσκεύασται. ἀλλὰ ἅλις.
You have endured countless things because you were not content to have your ruling faculty do what it was formed to do. But enough.
Commentary
The abrupt close attempts to end suffering generated by dissatisfied agency. The rebuke traces countless ordeals to refusing the proper work of the ruling faculty. The final word is a practical interruption rather than an additional proof. What the faculty was formed to do must be read through the book’s requirements of justice and fellowship, not equated with getting whatever the speaker wants.
9.27
Ὅταν ἄλλος ψέγῃ σε ἢ μισῇ ἢ τοιαῦτά τινα ἐκφωνῶσιν, ἔρχου ἐπὶ τὰ ψυχάρια αὐτῶν, δίελθε ἔσω καὶ ἴδε ποῖοί τινές εἰσιν. ὄψει ὅτι οὐ δεῖ σε σπᾶσθαι, ἵνα τούτοις τί ποτε περὶ σοῦ δοκῇ. εὐνοεῖν μέντοι αὐτοῖς δεῖ· φύσει γὰρ φίλοι, καὶ οἱ θεοὶ δὲ παντοίως αὐτοῖς βοηθοῦσι, δι’ ὀνείρων, διὰ μαντειῶν, πρὸς ταῦτα μέντοι, πρὸς ἃ ἐκεῖνοι διαφέρονται.
When someone blames or hates you, or people utter such things, go to their little souls, pass within, and see what sort of people they are. You will see that you need not strain to make them hold any particular opinion about you. Yet you must show them goodwill, for they are friends by nature. The gods too help them in every way, through dreams and oracles, toward precisely those things on which they set themselves.
Commentary
Independence from hostile opinion must coexist with goodwill toward the people who express it. Inspecting the critics’ dispositions relieves the pressure to secure their approval. The turn introduced by yet prevents that relief from licensing contempt. Natural friendship and divine assistance remain applicable even to the hostile critic; the gods’ reported help through dreams and oracles forms part of the argument and cannot simply be replaced by secular reassurance.
9.28
Ταὐτά ἐστι τὰ τοῦ κόσμου ἐγκύκλια, ἄνω κάτω, ἐξ αἰῶνος εἰς αἰῶνα. καὶ ἤτοι ἐφ’ ἕκαστον ὁρμᾷ ἡ τοῦ ὅλου διάνοια· ὅπερ εἰ ἔστιν, ἀποδέχου τὸ ἐκείνης ὁρμητόν· ἢ ἅπαξ ὥρμησε, τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ κατ’ ἐπακολούθησιν καὶ τί ἐντείνῃ; τρόπον γάρ τινα ἄτομοι ἢ ἀμερῆ. τὸ δ’ ὅλον, εἴτε θεός, εὖ ἔχει πάντα· εἴτε τὸ εἰκῇ, μὴ καὶ σὺ εἰκῇ.
Ἤδη πάντας ἡμᾶς γῆ καλύψει, ἔπειτα καὶ αὐτὴ μεταβαλεῖ κἀκεῖνα εἰς ἄπειρον μεταβαλεῖ καὶ πάλιν ἐκεῖνα εἰς ἄπειρον. τὰς γὰρ ἐπικυματώσεις τῶν μεταβολῶν καὶ ἀλλοιώσεων ἐνθυμούμενός τις καὶ τὸ τάχος παντὸς θνητοῦ καταφρονήσει.
The recurring things of the cosmos are the same, up and down, from age to age. Either the mind of the whole directs an impulse toward each thing—in which case accept what its impulse brings—or it directed an impulse once, and the rest follows as a consequence. Why do you strain? †For, in a way, atoms or partless things.† In general: if god, all is well; if chance, do not you too act by chance.
The earth will soon cover us all; then it too will change, and those things will change without end, and those in turn without end. Whoever considers the waves of changes and alterations and their speed will look down on everything mortal.
Commentary
Cosmological alternatives are used to discipline response while the damaged transition remains open. The first contrast concerns an impulse directed at each event or a single initiating impulse with subsequent consequences. A detached clause about atoms follows, but its relation to that pair is not secure. The clearer god-or-chance contrast demands purposeful conduct even under chance. The second paragraph turns from explanation to the speed of transformations, depriving mortality of its apparent solidity without repairing the earlier fragment.
9.28.1 The atoms phrase is present but its argumentative attachment remains uncertain. Leopold’s text places the short clause after the question about straining and before the god-or-chance alternative. It is not a blank in the witness. The English daggers mark the unresolved relation among clauses; they do not claim missing letters or authorize an added third disjunction. The earlier contrast between an individual and an original impulse should therefore remain distinct from the clearer later alternatives.
9.29
Χειμάρρους ἡ τῶν ὅλων οὐσία· πάντα φέρει. ὡς εὐτελῆ δὲ καὶ τὰ πολιτικὰ ταῦτα καί, ὡς οἴεται, φιλοσόφως πρακτικὰ ἀνθρώπια· μυξῶν μεστά.—ἄνθρωπε, τί ποτε; ποίησον ὃ νῦν ἡ φύσις ἀπαιτεῖ, ὅρμησον, ἐὰν διδῶται, καὶ μὴ περιβλέπου εἴ τις εἴσεται. μὴ τὴν Πλάτωνος πολιτείαν ἔλπιζε, ἀλλὰ ἀρκοῦ, εἰ τὸ βραχύτατον πρόεισι, καὶ τούτου αὐτοῦ τὴν ἔκβασιν ὡς μικρόν τί ἐστι διανοοῦ. δόγμα γὰρ αὐτῶν τίς μεταβαλεῖ; χωρὶς δὲ δογμάτων μεταβολῆς τί ἄλλο ἢ δουλεία στενόντων καὶ πείθεσθαι προσποιουμένων; ὕπαγε νῦν καὶ Ἀλέξανδρον καὶ Φίλιππον καὶ Δημήτριον τὸν Φαληρέα μοι λέγε. ὄψονται, εἰ εἶδον, τί ἡ κοινὴ φύσις ἤθελε, καὶ ἑαυτοὺς ἐπαιδαγώγησαν· εἰ δὲ ἐτραγῴδησαν, οὐδείς με κατακέκρικε μιμεῖσθαι. ἁπλοῦν ἐστι καὶ αἰδῆμον τὸ φιλοσοφίας ἔργον· μή με ἄπαγε ἐπὶ σεμνοτυφίαν.
The substance of the whole is a torrent: it carries everything away. How cheap are these little people in politics, who think they practice philosophy! Full of mucus. Human being, what is this? Do what nature now requires. Direct your impulse, if it is allowed, and do not look around to see whether anyone will know. Do not hope for Plato's republic. Be content if the smallest thing moves forward, and consider its very outcome as something small. For who will change their doctrine? Without a change of doctrines, what else is there but the slavery of people who groan and pretend to obey? Come now, tell me of Alexander, Philip, and Demetrius of Phalerum. Whether they understood what universal nature wished and trained themselves is their concern. If they played tragedy, no one has condemned me to imitate them. Philosophy's work is simple and self-respecting. Do not lead me into pompous conceit.
Commentary
Practical philosophical work is separated from the fantasy of complete political transformation. The torrent and mucus images deflate grand political self-presentation. In their place the speaker is told to attempt the small action nature presently allows, without seeking an audience. Genuine change in convictions is distinguished from coerced compliance, and celebrated rulers are subjected to the same test of self-education. The closing standard of simplicity and self-respect opposes theatrical imitation rather than civic action itself.
9.29.1 The printed text keeps the scale of the outcome small and leaves the rulers’ understanding conditional. The apparatus offers alternatives that would reverse the small valuation or turn the response to the rulers into a promise of imitation. The pin follows neither. Its future ὄψονται distances their case, while the following condition leaves open whether they understood nature and educated themselves. The English their concern conveys that distance; it is not a verdict that all the named rulers failed.
9.29.1 The refusal to expect Plato’s republic does not cancel the obligation to attempt available civic work. The named ideal is contrasted with the smallest feasible advance. The complaint about groaning obedience then distinguishes altered convictions from merely compelled behavior. This limits political ambition without giving the speaker permission to abandon what nature now requires; the small action remains an imperative within the passage.
9.30
Ἄνωθεν ἐπιθεωρεῖν ἀγέλας μυρίας καὶ τελετὰς μυρίας καὶ πλοῦν παντοῖον ἐν χειμῶσι καὶ γαλήναις καὶ διαφορὰς γινομένων, συγγινομένων, ἀπογινομένων. ἐπινόει δὲ καὶ τὸν ὑπ’ ἄλλων πάλαι βεβιωμένον βίον καὶ τὸν μετὰ σὲ βιωθησόμενον καὶ τὸν νῦν ἐν τοῖς βαρβάροις ἔθνεσι βιούμενον· καὶ ὅσοι μὲν οὐδὲ ὄνομά σου γινώσκουσιν, ὅσοι δὲ τάχιστα ἐπιλήσονται, ὅσοι δ’ ἐπαινοῦντες ἴσως νῦν σε τάχιστα ψέξουσι· καὶ ὡς οὔτε ἡ μνήμη ἀξιόλογόν γε οὔτε ἡ δόξα οὔτε ἄλλο τι τὸ σύμπαν.
Look down from above on countless herds, countless rites, every kind of voyage in storms and calms, and the variety of those who come to be, come together, and pass away. Think also of the life others lived long ago, of what will be lived after you, and of what is now lived among barbarian nations; how many do not even know your name, how many will forget it very quickly, and how many who perhaps praise you now will very quickly blame you. Neither remembrance nor reputation nor anything else at all is worth much.
Commentary
The view from above combines spatial and historical distance to diminish dependence on fame. The imagined observer ranges over activities, earlier lives, future lives, and people outside the speaker’s familiar society. The final sequence then narrows from those who never knew his name to those who will forget or reverse their praise. Fame shrinks because its audiences are partial, temporary, and unstable, not because the passage has demonstrated that human activity is without all value.
9.30.1 The category barbarian belongs to the speaker’s historical viewpoint. Its function in the survey is to widen attention beyond the society that might know his name. Retaining it records the source’s classification without treating it as a neutral description of a present-day people. The passage provides no list of those peoples, so the commentary does not assign the label to a modern population.
9.31
Ἀταραξία μὲν περὶ τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκτὸς αἰτίας συμβαίνοντα, δικαιότης δὲ ἐν τοῖς παρὰ τὴν ἐκ σοῦ αἰτίαν ἐνεργουμένοις· τουτέστιν, ὁρμὴ καὶ πρᾶξις καταλήγουσα ἐπ’ αὐτὸ τὸ κοινωνικῶς πρᾶξαι ὡς τοῦτό σοι κατὰ φύσιν ὄν.
Freedom from disturbance about what happens from the external cause; justice in the activities that come from the cause within you. That is: an impulse and action ending in the very act of social fellowship, since this accords with your nature.
Commentary
Peace about incoming events is paired with justice in the actions one initiates. The two causes distinguish reception from agency. The explanatory clause makes the end of the agent’s impulse the social act itself, rather than a later return of praise or repayment. Thus freedom from disturbance and active fellowship are complementary demands; the first cannot excuse failure in the second.
9.31.1 An action’s completion in fellowship anticipates the closing rebuke to the unrewarded giver. Here impulse and action reach their end in acting socially. At 9.42 the giver is asked why another payment is needed after the act has borne its fruit. The link concerns the criterion of completion: a good deed should not be left morally unfinished until someone expresses gratitude.
9.32
Πολλὰ περισσὰ περιελεῖν τῶν ἐνοχλούντων σοι δύνασαι ὅλα ἐπὶ τῇ ὑπολήψει σου κείμενα, καὶ πολλὴν εὐρυχωρίαν περιποιήσεις ἤδη σεαυτῷ ⟨τῷ⟩ τὸν ὅλον κόσμον περιειληφέναι τῇ γνώμῃ καὶ τὸν ἀίδιον αἰῶνα περινοεῖν καὶ τὴν τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἑκάστου πράγματος ταχεῖαν μεταβολὴν ἐπινοεῖν, ὡς βραχὺ μὲν τὸ ἀπὸ γενέσεως μέχρι διαλύσεως, ἀχανὲς δὲ τὸ πρὸ τῆς γενέσεως, ὡς καὶ τὸ μετὰ τὴν διάλυσιν ὁμοίως ἄπειρον.
You can strip away many unnecessary things that trouble you, things that lie entirely in your judgment. You will at once make much room for yourself by taking the whole cosmos into your understanding, thinking round eternal time, and considering the swift change of each particular thing: how brief the interval from birth to dissolution, how vast what was before birth, and how what follows dissolution is likewise boundless.
Commentary
A wider temporal perspective creates room by removing unnecessary judgments. The opening says many troublesome additions can be removed, not that every difficulty is imaginary. The means is an act of comprehension: take in the cosmos, indefinite time, and the short interval occupied by an individual thing. Spaciousness is the practical effect of this changed proportion, rather than a promise to alter the thing’s lifespan.
9.33
Πάντα ὅσα ὁρᾷς τάχιστα φθαρήσεται καὶ οἱ φθειρόμενα αὐτὰ ἐπιδόντες τάχιστα καὶ αὐτοὶ φθαρήσονται καὶ ὁ ἐσχατόγηρως ἀποθανὼν εἰς ἴσον καταστήσεται τῷ προώρῳ.
Everything you see will very quickly perish, and those who watch it perish will themselves very quickly perish. Whoever dies in extreme old age will come to the same condition as one who dies before their time.
Commentary
Mortality includes both the objects watched and their observers. The second loss undermines the imagined refuge of becoming a witness to the first. The final comparison brings long and prematurely ended lives to one condition without claiming that their histories contained identical experiences. Its equalization concerns their ending.
9.34
Τίνα τὰ ἡγεμονικὰ τούτων καὶ περὶ οἷα ἐσπουδάκασι καὶ δι’ οἷα φιλοῦσι καὶ τιμῶσι· γυμνὰ νόμιζε βλέπειν τὰ ψυχάρια αὐτῶν. ὅτε δοκοῦσι βλάπτειν ψέγοντες ἢ ὠφελεῖν ἐξυμνοῦντες, ὅση οἴησις.
What are these people's ruling faculties like? What have they taken seriously? For what reasons do they love and honor? Imagine you see their little souls naked. What conceit, when they suppose they harm by blame or benefit by praise.
Commentary
The supposed power of praise and blame is tested against the evaluator’s motives. The questions ask what others value and why they distribute honor. Imagining their souls without covering strips prestige from that evaluative activity. The final accusation of conceit belongs to those who suppose their words can confer moral benefit or harm; it also warns the speaker against accepting that supposition.
9.35
Ἡ ἀποβολὴ οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἐστὶν ἢ μεταβολή. τούτῳ δὲ χαίρει ἡ τῶν ὅλων φύσις, καθ’ ἢν πάντα καλῶς γίνεται ⟨καὶ⟩ ἐξ αἰῶνος ὁμοειδῶς ἐγίνετο καὶ εἰς ἄπειρον τοιαῦθ̓ ἕτερα ἔσται. τί οὖν λέγεις ὅτι ἐγίνετό τε πάντα ⟨κακῶς⟩ καὶ πάντα ἀεὶ κακῶς ἔσται καὶ οὐδεμία ἄρα δύναμις ἐν τοσούτοις θεοῖς ἐξευρέθη ποτὲ ἡ διορθώσουσα ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ κατακέκριται ὁ κόσμος ἐν ἀδιαλείπτοις κακοῖς συνέχεσθαι;
Loss is nothing but change. The nature of the whole delights in this; according to her, everything happens well, and has happened in the same way from eternity, and other things like these will continue without end. What, then, are you saying? That everything happened badly, and everything will always be bad, and among so many gods no power was ever found to set these things right, but the cosmos has been condemned to be held in unceasing evils?
Commentary
The demand that loss be abolished is presented as an accusation against the entire divine order. Redescribing loss as change brings it within the process nature delights in. The rhetorical question then enlarges protest at one loss into the claim that the cosmos has always been badly arranged and no god could repair it. The pressure of that implication depends on the theological premise; the passage argues from confidence in cosmic order rather than independently proving it here.
9.35.1 The two supplied words contribute to the temporal sweep of the argument. Leopold marks the conjunction before the past sequence and the first adverb of badness in the objection as additions. Both are included in the pinned text and represented in English. They connect the present account of nature to an indefinite past and make the objection explicitly concern bad arrangement; neither should be mistaken for an independent modern addition to the argument.
9.36
Τὸ σαπρὸν τῆς ἑκάστῳ ὑποκειμένης ὕλης· ὕδωρ, κόνις, ὀστάρια, γράσος, ἢ πάλιν· πῶροι γῆς τὰ μάρμαρα καὶ ὑποστάθμαι ὁ χρυσός, ὁ ἄργυρος, καὶ τριχία ἡ ἐσθὴς καὶ αἷμα ἡ πορφύρα, καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα τοιαῦτα. καὶ τὸ πνευμάτιον δὲ ἄλλο τοιοῦτον καὶ ἐκ τούτων εἰς ταῦτα μεταβάλλον.
The rottenness of the material underlying each thing: water, dust, little bones, stench. Or again: marble is a stony growth of the earth; gold and silver are sediment; clothing is hair; purple is blood; and everything else is like this. The little breath too is another such thing, changing from these things into these things.
Commentary
Material redescription removes prestige while extending bodily transience to the animating breath. Luxury and bodily substance are placed in one depreciating catalogue. Marble, precious metal, clothing, and dye lose the social valuation attached to their finished forms when redescribed through raw material. The final diminutive prevents the breath from becoming an exempt possession outside that economy of change. The emotional disgust is part of the exercise, not a neutral material science.
9.36.1 The marble metaphor uses a range of stone and concretion senses, not necessarily a skin callus. LSJ records building stone, stalactite, and bodily stone formations before explicitly citing this passage as metaphorical. Stony growth preserves that material range while participating in the catalogue’s deflation of costly surfaces. Nodule or incrustation could draw the image differently; the lexicon does not require the narrower skin image.
9.37
Ἅλις τοῦ ἀθλίου βίου καὶ γογγυσμοῦ καὶ πιθηκισμοῦ.—τί ταράσσῃ; τί τούτων καινόν; τί σε ἐξίστησι; τὸ αἴτιον; ἴδε αὐτό. ἀλλ’ ἡ ὕλη; ἴδε αὐτήν. ἔξω δὲ τούτων οὐδέν ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς ἤδη ποτὲ ἁπλούστερος καὶ χρηστότερος γενοῦ.
Ἴσον τὸ ἑκατὸν ἔτεσι καὶ τὸ τρισὶ ταῦτα ἱστορῆσαι.
Enough of the miserable life, grumbling, and aping. Why are you disturbed? What here is new? What throws you off? The cause? Look at it. The material, then? Look at it. There is nothing outside these. But toward the gods too, now at last become simpler and better.
It is the same to investigate these things for a hundred years or for three.
Commentary
Analysis of cause and material is made a remedy for repetitive complaint. The abrupt opening breaks off grumbling and mimicry. The questions then force attention onto what supposedly makes the situation astonishing, reducing it to cause and material before restoring the demand for simplicity toward the gods. The separate final paragraph argues that more years of observing the same kinds of things do not necessarily add insight.
9.37.1 The comparison of duration uses a hundred years in the governing print. The final paragraph contrasts a hundred with three, with years carried over into the second member. The point is the recurrence of the objects examined, not a calculation of how much time is needed for mastery. A larger number supplied by another English witness should not displace the printed numeral.
9.38
Εἰ μὲν ἥμαρτεν, ἐκεῖ τὸ κακόν. τάχα δ’ οὐχ ἥμαρτεν.
If they did wrong, the evil is there. But perhaps they did not do wrong.
Commentary
Locating wrongdoing in its agent is followed by a check on whether wrongdoing occurred at all. The conditional opening offers the usual protection against importing another’s fault into oneself. The second sentence then withdraws confidence in the premise. The compact pairing therefore restrains both emotional appropriation and premature accusation.
9.39
Ἤτοι ἀπὸ μιᾶς πηγῆς νοερᾶς πάντα ὡς ἑνὶ σώματι ἐπισυμβαίνει καὶ οὐ δεῖ τὸ μέρος τοῖς ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὅλου γινομένοις μέμφεσθαι· ἢ ἄτομοι καὶ οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἢ κυκεὼν καὶ σκεδασμός· τί οὖν ταράσσῃ; τῷ ἡγεμονικῷ λέγεις· τέθνηκας, ἔφθαρσαι, τεθηρίωσαι, ὑποκρίνῃ, συναγελάζῃ, βόσκῃ;
Either everything comes from one intelligent source, as things happen in one body, and the part must not blame what happens for the whole; or there are atoms and nothing but a mixture and scattering. Why, then, are you disturbed? Do you say to your ruling faculty: are you dead, destroyed, turned into a beast? Are you playing a part, running with the herd, grazing?
Commentary
The cosmic alternatives lead back to an interrogation of the ruling faculty. An intelligent source would make the individual a part of one body; atoms would instead supply mixture and dispersal. The passage demands an end to disturbance before turning upon the faculty itself through images of death, pretense, and animal existence. It does not select one cosmology in order to justify the rebuke. The closing questions expose forms of abdicated rational activity rather than merely insulting other people.
9.39.1 The pinned closing address retains the indicative λέγεις and interrogative punctuation. The apparatus supplies an imperative alternative, but the English does not adopt it. Keeping a question that introduces the rebuke preserves the printed form, while the series of animalizing verbs sharpens the demand for rational self-examination. The exact scope of the concluding question mark is interpretive; the commentary need not convert the whole sequence into unqualified assertions.
9.40
Ἤτοι οὐδὲν δύνανται οἱ θεοὶ ἢ δύνανται. εἰ μὲν οὖν μὴ δύνανται, τί εὔχῃ; εἰ δὲ δύνανται, διὰ τί οὐχὶ μᾶλλον εὔχῃ. διδόναι αὐτοὺς τὸ μήτε φοβεῖσθαί τι τούτων μήτε ἐπιθυμεῖν τινος τούτων μήτε λυπεῖσθαι ἐπί τινι τούτων, μᾶλλον ἤπερ τὸ μὴ παρεῖναί τι τούτων ἢ τὸ παρεῖναι; πάντως γάρ, εἰ δύνανται συνεργεῖν ἀνθρώποις, καὶ εἰς ταῦτα δύνανται συνεργεῖν. ἀλλὰ ἴσως ἐρεῖς ὅτι· ἐπ’ ἐμοὶ αὐτὰ οἱ θεοὶ ἐποίησαν. εἶτα οὐ κρεῖσσον χρῆσθαι τοῖς ἐπὶ σοὶ μετ’ ἐλευθερίας ἣ διαφέρεσθαι πρὸς τὰ μὴ ἐπὶ σοὶ μετὰ δουλείας καὶ ταπεινότητος; τίς δέ σοι εἶπεν ὅτι οὐχὶ καὶ εἰς τὰ ἐφ̓ ἡμῖν οἱ θεοὶ συλλαμβάνουσιν; ἄρξαι γοῦν περὶ τούτων εὔχεσθαι καὶ ὄψει. οὗτος εὔχεται· πῶς κοιμηθῶ μετ’ ἐκείνης· σύ· πῶς μὴ ἐπιθυμήσω τοῦ κοιμηθῆναι μετ’ ἐκείνης. ἄλλος· πῶς στερηθῶ ἐκείνου· σύ· πῶς μὴ χρῄζω τοῦ στερηθῆναι. ἄλλος· πῶς μὴ ἀποβάλω τὸ τεκνίον· σύ· πῶς μὴ φοβηθῶ ἀποβαλεῖν. ὅλως ὧδε ἐπίστρεψον τὰς εὐχὰς καὶ θεώρει τί γίνεται.
Either the gods can do nothing, or they can do something. If they cannot, why pray? If they can, why not pray instead that they grant you neither to fear any of these things, nor desire any, nor be distressed by any, rather than that some of them be absent or present? Surely, if they can work with human beings, they can work with them in these things too. But perhaps you will say: the gods made these things depend on me. Is it not better, then, to use what depends on you with freedom than to be drawn toward what does not depend on you in slavery and abasement? Who told you that the gods do not also assist with what depends on us? Begin praying about these things, then, and you will see. One person prays: how may I sleep with that woman? You: how may I not desire to sleep with that woman? Another: how may I be rid of that person? You: how may I not need to be rid of them? Another: how may I not lose my little child? You: how may I not fear losing the child? Turn your prayers around in this way altogether, and observe what happens.
Commentary
Prayer is redirected toward the use of agency without excluding divine cooperation. The argument first tests whether prayer presupposes divine power, then challenges the assumption that what depends on us must therefore receive no divine help. Its paired examples reverse the aim of petitions concerning sex, an unwanted person, and a child’s survival. The proposed freedom concerns desire and fear; the ending invites observation of the practice rather than guaranteeing the requested external outcome.
9.40.1 The paired prayers change the desired response, not the identity of the things feared or wanted. The female sexual referent, the unwanted person, and the little child remain concrete. Removing those particulars would weaken the exercise, whose difficulty lies in applying the change to actual attachment. The child example concerns fear of loss; it does not command indifference to the child’s care. Divine assistance remains an explicit possibility within what depends on the agent. The English takes the freedom-and-servility question as the speaker’s reply to the imagined objection, but the Greek leaves the change of voice unlabelled.
9.41
Ὁ Ἐπίκουρος λέγει ὅτι· ʽἐν τῇ νόσῳ οὐκ ἦσάν μοι αἱ ὁμιλίαι περὶ τῶν τοῦ σωματίου παθῶν οὐδὲ πρὸς τοὺς εἰσιόντας τοιαῦτά τινα, φησίν, ἐλάλουν, ἀλλὰ τὰ προηγούμενα φυσιολογῶν διετέλουν καὶ πρὸς αὐτῷ τούτῳ ὤν, πῶς ἡ διάνοια συμμεταλαμβάνουσα τῶν ἐν τῷ σαρκιδίῳ τοιούτων κινήσεων ἀταρακτεῖ τὸ ἴδιον ἀγαθὸν τηροῦσα. οὐδὲ τοῖς ἰατροῖς ἐμπαρεῖχον, φησί, καταφρυάττεσθαι ὥς τι ποιοῦσιν, ἀλλ’ ὁ βίος ἤγετο εὖ καὶ καλῶς.ʼ ταὐτὰ οὖν ἐκείνῳ, [ἐν νόσῳ,] ἐὰν νοσῇς καὶ ἐν ἄλλῃ τινὶ περιστάσει· τὸ γὰρ μὴ ἀφίστασθαι φιλοσοφίας ἐν οἷς δήποτε τοῖς προσπίπτουσι μηδὲ ἰδιώτῃ καὶ ἀφυσιολόγῳ συμφλυαρεῖν, πάσης αἱρέσεως κοινόν. πρὸς μόνῳ τῷ νῦν πρασσομένῳ εἶναι καὶ τῷ ὀργάνῳ, δι’ οὗ πράσσεις.
Epicurus says: ‘In illness, my conversations were not about the sufferings of my little body, nor did I speak of such things to those who came in,’ he says, ‘but I continued to discuss the main questions of nature, staying with this very question: how the mind, while sharing in such movements in the scrap of flesh, remains undisturbed and preserves its own good. Nor did I give the physicians occasion,’ he says, ‘to strut as though they were doing something; life went on well and finely.’ Do the same as he did [in illness,] if you are ill, or in any other difficult circumstance. For it is common to every school not to desert philosophy under any of the things that befall us, nor to join in the chatter of someone untrained and ignorant of nature. Attend only to what is being done now and to the instrument through which you do it.
Commentary
Epicurus serves as an example of philosophical constancy that the speaker treats as common across schools. The reported illness conversation is concerned with the mind’s steadiness while it shares bodily movements. Its interest is therefore not secured by denying the body’s condition. The speaker then generalizes beyond the named teacher to the refusal to abandon philosophy in any circumstance. The final attention to present work and its instrument makes the borrowed example a demand for practice rather than a declaration of doctrinal agreement.
9.41.1 Only the later repeated illness phrase is marked as deleted in the source. The illness phrase inside the attributed quotation belongs to its ordinary text. The second occurrence, after the imitation instruction begins, is bracketed in Leopold and rendered in square brackets in English. Keeping their different statuses avoids deleting the setting of the example or turning the editorial repetition into a new circumstance.
9.41.1 Using Epicurus as an example does not assert identity between every school’s doctrines. The common element is a refusal to abandon philosophy under adverse conditions. The reported mind still shares bodily motions while preserving its own good, so the quotation is not a simple assertion of bodily unreality. The text names the exemplar and the claimed common practice; it does not provide the independent context needed to reconstruct Epicurus’s full original argument.
9.42
Ὅταν τινὸς ἀναισχυντίᾳ προσκόπτῃς, εὐθὺς πυνθάνου σεαυτοῦ· δύνανται οὖν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἀναίσχυντοι μὴ εἶναι; οὐ δύνανται· μὴ οὖν ἀπαίτει τὸ ἀδύνατον· εἷς γὰρ καὶ οὗτός ἐστιν ἐκείνων τῶν ἀναισχύντων, οὓς ἀνάγκη ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ εἶναι. τὸ δ’ αὐτὸ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ πανούργου καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀπίστου καὶ παντὸς τοῦ ὁτιοῦν ἁμαρτάνοντος ἔστω σοι πρόχειρον· ἅμα γὰρ τῷ ὑπομνησθῆναι ὅτι τὸ γένος τῶν τοιούτων ἀδύνατόν ἐστι μὴ ὑπάρχειν, εὐμενέστερος ἔσῃ πρὸς τοὺς καθ’ ἕνα.
εὔχρηστον δὲ κἀκεῖνο εὐθὺς ἐννοεῖν, τίνα ἔδωκεν ἡ φύσις τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἀρετὴν πρὸς τοῦτο τὸ ἁμάρτημα· ἔδωκε γὰρ ὡς ἀντιφάρμακον πρὸς μὲν τὸν ἀγνώμονα τὴν πρᾳότητα, πρὸς δὲ ἄλλον ἄλλην τινὰ δύναμιν, ὅλως δὲ ἔξεστί σοι μεταδιδάσκειν τὸν πεπλανημένον· πᾶς γὰρ ὁ ἁμαρτάνων ἀφαμαρτάνει τοῦ προκειμένου καὶ πεπλάνηται. τί δὲ καὶ βέβλαψαι; εὑρήσεις γὰρ μηδένα τούτων, πρὸς οὓς παροξύνῃ, πεποιηκότα τι τοιοῦτον, ἐξ οὗ ἡ διάνοιά σου χείρων ἔμελλε γενήσεσθαι·
τὸ δὲ κακόν σου καὶ τὸ βλαβερὸν ἐνταῦθα πᾶσαν τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἔχει. τί δὲ καινὸν ἢ ξένον γέγονεν, εἰ ὁ ἀπαίδευτος τὰ τοῦ ἀπαιδεύτου πράσσει; ὅρα μὴ σεαυτῷ μᾶλλον ἐγκαλεῖν ὀφείλῃς, ὅτι οὐ προσεδόκησας τοῦτον τοῦτο ἁμαρτήσεσθαι· σὺ γὰρ καὶ ἀφορμὰς ἐκ τοῦ λόγου εἶχες πρὸς τὸ ἐνθυμηθῆναι ὅτι εἰκός ἐστι τοῦτον τοῦτο ἁμαρτήσεσθαι, καὶ ὅμως ἐπιλαθόμενος θαυμάζεις εἰ ἡμάρτηκε.
μάλιστα δέ, ὅταν ὡς ἀπίστῳ ἢ ἀχαρίστῳ μέμφῃ, εἰς σεαυτὸν ἐπιστρέφου· προδήλως γὰρ σὸν τὸ ἁμάρτημα, εἴτε περὶ τοῦ τοιαύτην τὴν διάθεσιν ἔχοντος ἐπίστευσας ὅτι τὴν πίστιν φυλάξει, εἴτε τὴν χάριν διδοὺς μὴ καταληκτικῶς ἔδωκας μηδὲ ὥστε ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς πράξεως εὐθὺς ἀπειληφέναι πάντα τὸν καρπόν. τί γὰρ πλέον θέλεις εὖ ποιήσας ἄνθρωπον; οὐκ ἀρκεῖ τοῦτο, ὅτι κατὰ φύσιν τὴν σήν τι ἔπραξας, ἀλλὰ τούτου μισθὸν ζητεῖς; ὡσεὶ ὁ ὀφθαλμὸς ἀμοιβὴν ἀπῄτει, ὅτι βλέπει, ἢ οἱ πόδες, ὅτι βαδίζουσιν. ὥσπερ γὰρ ταῦτα πρὸς τόδε τι γέγονεν, ὅπερ κατὰ τὴν ἰδίαν κατασκευὴν ἐνεργοῦντα ἀπέχει τὸ ἴδιον, οὕτως καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος εὐεργετικὸς πεφυκώς, ὁπόταν τι εὐεργετικὸν ἢ ἄλλως εἰς τὰ μέσα συνεργητικὸν πράξῃ, πεποίηκε, πρὸς ὃ κατεσκεύασται, καὶ ἔχει τὸ ἑαυτοῦ.
When someone's shamelessness offends you, immediately ask yourself: can there be no shameless people in the cosmos? There cannot. Then do not demand the impossible. This person too is one of the shameless people who must exist in the cosmos. Have the same thought ready about the scoundrel, the untrustworthy person, and anyone who does any sort of wrong. For as soon as you remember that the existence of such a kind is unavoidable, you will be better disposed toward its individual members.
It is also useful to consider at once what virtue nature has given a human being to meet this fault. For as an antidote against the unreasonable person she gave gentleness, and against another some other power. In general, you can teach the person who has gone astray differently: everyone who does wrong misses the intended aim and has gone astray. And in what have you been harmed? You will find that none of those with whom you are angry has done anything by which your mind was going to become worse.
Yet your evil and what harms you have their whole existence there. What new or strange thing has happened if the uneducated person does what belongs to the uneducated? Consider whether you should rather accuse yourself for not expecting this person to do this wrong. For you had resources from reason to think that this person would probably do this wrong, yet you forgot and are surprised that they did.
Above all, when you blame someone as untrustworthy or ungrateful, turn toward yourself. The fault is plainly yours, whether you trusted someone of that disposition to keep faith, or gave a favor without making the act an end in itself, without at once receiving its whole fruit from the action itself. What more do you want after doing good to a human being? Is it not enough that you acted according to your nature, but you seek pay for it? As though the eye demanded repayment because it sees, or the feet because they walk. Just as these came into being for a certain task and, by doing it according to their own constitution, receive what is their own, so a human being, naturally made for beneficence, whenever they do something beneficial or otherwise contribute to common purposes, has done what they were formed for and has what is their own.
Commentary
The closing sequence transforms anger at others into realistic expectation and unrewarded beneficence. The existence of wrongdoing first becomes something to expect, reducing shock at its particular instances. The speaker then turns to the capacity for gentleness and correction, and asks whether another’s act has actually worsened his own mind. Finally, disappointment in gratitude exposes an unfinished gift: the giver still wanted a return. Eye and feet provide the model for an action whose fruit lies in fulfilling its function. These moves discipline the response to wrong without making wrong right.
9.42.2 The antidote is a virtue exercised by the speaker, not the elimination of the offending person. Gentleness is directed at one kind of fault, and other powers meet others. The possibility of teaching differently makes the response active. The later reference to those with whom the speaker is angry keeps his reaction grammatically visible, preparing the inquiry into whether his own mind has been made worse.
9.42.4 The adverb about giving points to a gift completed without a further return. LSJ’s adverbial entry explicitly cites 9.42 and the related passage at 7.13 for disinterested giving. The local fruit, eye, and feet analogies explain the practical force: the act realizes its function without waiting for wages. This is distinct from καταληπτικός in 9.6, despite the similar appearance of the two words.
9.42.4 Common purposes is a contextual reading of εἰς τὰ μέσα, not a settled technical equivalence. The phrase follows beneficent action and is governed by cooperation, which supports a shared-affairs interpretation. LSJ also records the ethical use of the plural for things neither good nor bad, alongside expressions of public or common placement. The context favors a communal contribution, but the English should retain the qualification instead of suppressing the alternative.