|
Main
- books.jibble.org
My Books
- IRC Hacks
Misc. Articles
- Meaning of Jibble
- M4 Su Doku
- Computer Scrapbooking
- Setting up Java
- Bootable Java
- Cookies in Java
- Dynamic Graphs
- Social Shakespeare
External Links
- Paul Mutton
- Jibble Photo Gallery
- Jibble Forums
- Google Landmarks
- Jibble Shop
- Free Books
- Intershot Ltd
|
books.jibble.org
Previous Page
| Next Page
Page 66
7. The parts of the whole, everything, I mean, which is naturally
comprehended in the universe, must of necessity perish; but let this be
understood in this sense, that they must undergo change. But if this is
naturally both an evil and a necessity for the parts, the whole would
not continue to exist in a good condition, the parts being subject to
change and constituted so as to perish in various ways. For whether did
Nature herself design to do evil to the things which are parts of
herself, and to make them subject to evil and of necessity fall into
evil, or have such results happened without her knowing it? Both these
suppositions, indeed, are incredible. But if a man should even drop the
term Nature [as an efficient power], and should speak of these things as
natural, even then it would be ridiculous to affirm at the same time
that the parts of the whole are in their nature subject to change, and
at the same time to be surprised or vexed as if something were happening
contrary to nature, particularly as the dissolution of things is into
those things of which each thing is composed. For there is either a
dispersion of the elements out of which everything has been compounded,
or a change from the solid to the earthy and from the airy to the
aerial, so that these parts are taken back into the universal reason,
whether this at certain periods is consumed by fire or renewed by
eternal changes. And do not imagine that the solid and the airy part
belong to thee from the time of generation. For all this received its
accretion only yesterday and the day before, as one may say, from the
food and the air which is inspired. This, then, which has received [the
accretion], changes, not that which thy mother brought forth. But
suppose that this [which thy mother brought forth] implicates thee very
much with that other part, which has the peculiar quality [of change],
this is nothing in fact in the way of objection to what is said.[A]
[A] The end of this section is perhaps corrupt. The meaning is
very obscure. I have given that meaning which appears to be
consistent with the whole argument. The emperor here maintains
that the essential part of man is unchangeable, and that the
other parts, if they change or perish, do not affect that which
really constitutes the man. See the Philosophy of Antoninus, p.
56, note 2. Schultz supposed "thy mother" to mean nature,
[Greek: h� physis]. But I doubt about that.
8. When thou hast assumed these names, good, modest, true, rational, a
man of equanimity, and magnanimous, take care that thou dost not change
these names; and if thou shouldst lose them, quickly return to them. And
remember that the term Rational was intended to signify a discriminating
attention to every several thing, and freedom from negligence; and that
Equanimity is the voluntary acceptance of the things which are assigned
to thee by the common nature; and that Magnanimity is the elevation of
the intelligent part above the pleasurable or painful sensations of the
flesh, and above that poor thing called fame, and death, and all such
things. If, then, thou maintainest thyself in the possession of these
names, without desiring to be called by these names by others, thou wilt
be another person and wilt enter on another life. For to continue to be
such as thou hast hitherto been, and to be torn in pieces and defiled in
such a life, is the character of a very stupid man and one over-fond of
his life, and like those half-devoured fighters with wild beasts, who
though covered with wounds and gore, still intreat to be kept to the
following day, though they will be exposed in the same state to the same
claws and bites.[A] Therefore fix thyself in the possession of these few
names: and if thou art able to abide in them, abide as if thou wast
removed to certain islands of the Happy.[B] But if thou shalt perceive
that thou fallest out of them and dost not maintain thy hold, go
courageously into some nook where thou shalt maintain them, or even
depart at once from life, not in passion, but with simplicity and
freedom and modesty, after doing this one [laudable] thing at least in
thy life, to have gone out of it thus. In order, however to the
remembrance of these names, it will greatly help thee if thou
rememberest the gods, and that they wish not to be flattered, but wish
all reasonable beings to be made like themselves; and if thou
rememberest that what does the work of a fig-tree is a fig-tree, and
that what does the work of a dog is a dog, and that what does the work
of a bee is a bee, and that what does the work of a man is a man.
[A] See Seneca, Epp. 70, on these exhibitions which amused the
people of those days. These fighters were the Bestiarri, some
of whom may have been criminals; but even if they were, the
exhibition was equally characteristic of the depraved habits of
the spectators.
[B] The islands of the Happy, or the Fortunatae Insulae, are
spoken of by the Greek and Roman writers. They were the abode
of Heroes, like Achilles and Diomedes, as we see in the Scolion
of Harmodius and Aristogiton. Sertorius heard of the islands at
Cadiz from some sailors who had been there; and he had a wish
to go and live in them and rest from his troubles (Plutarch,
Sertorius, c. 8). In the Odyssey, Proteus told Menelaus that he
should not die in Argos, but be removed to a place at the
boundary of the earth where Rhadamanthus dwelt (Odyssey, iv.
565):--
Previous Page
| Next Page
|
|