| Title | Epictetus, "Encheiridion" 27 |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1992 |
| Journal | Mnemosyne, Fourth Series |
| Volume | 45 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 473-481 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Boter, Gerard |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| "Obscuras et dubius locus," is Wolf's comment on chapter 27 of Epictetus' Encheiridion, and rightly so. The comparison employed by Epictetus in this chapter has been interpreted in several different ways, none of which, however, is entirely or even approximately satisfactory. The statement made by Epictetus is rather plain in itself: evil has no autonomous natural existence in the world, and one can hardly doubt that Simplicius is correct in his contention that good is a ὑπόστασις, whereas evil is a παρυπόστασις, i.e., something which exists only as a counterpart of good but has no independent existence of its own. The problem lies in the comparison: in which way can the statement σκοπὸς πρὸς τὸ ἀποτυχεῖν οὐ τίθεται be applied to the notion that ἡ φύσις κακοῦ does not exist in the cosmos? Moreover, the situation is further complicated by the fact that the part of the Diatribes from which Arrianus took Ench. 27 is not extant, so that we cannot tell whether Epictetus gave a fuller exposition of the comparison. Before discussing a number of interpretations proposed by commentators, ancient and modern, I would like to stress that in principle, preference should be given to an interpretation that stays as close to the text as possible (i.e., one that does not have to adduce notions which are not expressed explicitly), and in which the parallelism between image and application is seen most directly. [introduction p. 473-474] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/eKcNERBrRo5RK9q |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1074","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1074,"authors_free":[{"id":1628,"entry_id":1074,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":15,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Boter, Gerard","free_first_name":"Gerard","free_last_name":"Boter","norm_person":{"id":15,"first_name":"Gerard ","last_name":"Boter","full_name":"Boter, Gerard ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1089766114","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Epictetus, \"Encheiridion\" 27","main_title":{"title":"Epictetus, \"Encheiridion\" 27"},"abstract":"\"Obscuras et dubius locus,\" is Wolf's comment on chapter 27 of Epictetus' Encheiridion, and rightly so. The comparison employed by Epictetus in this chapter has been interpreted in several different ways, none of which, however, is entirely or even approximately satisfactory. The statement made by Epictetus is rather plain in itself: evil has no autonomous natural existence in the world, and one can hardly doubt that Simplicius is correct in his contention that good is a \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, whereas evil is a \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c5\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, i.e., something which exists only as a counterpart of good but has no independent existence of its own.\r\n\r\nThe problem lies in the comparison: in which way can the statement \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 be applied to the notion that \u1f21 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6 does not exist in the cosmos? Moreover, the situation is further complicated by the fact that the part of the Diatribes from which Arrianus took Ench. 27 is not extant, so that we cannot tell whether Epictetus gave a fuller exposition of the comparison.\r\n\r\nBefore discussing a number of interpretations proposed by commentators, ancient and modern, I would like to stress that in principle, preference should be given to an interpretation that stays as close to the text as possible (i.e., one that does not have to adduce notions which are not expressed explicitly), and in which the parallelism between image and application is seen most directly. [introduction p. 473-474]","btype":3,"date":"1992","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eKcNERBrRo5RK9q","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":15,"full_name":"Boter, Gerard ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1074,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Mnemosyne, Fourth Series","volume":"45","issue":"4","pages":"473-481"}},"sort":[1992]}
| Title | Epictetus, "Encheiridion" 27 |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1992 |
| Journal | Mnemosyne, Fourth Series |
| Volume | 45 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 473-481 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Boter, Gerard |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
"Obscuras et dubius locus," is Wolf's comment on chapter 27 of Epictetus' Encheiridion, and rightly so. The comparison employed by Epictetus in this chapter has been interpreted in several different ways, none of which, however, is entirely or even approximately satisfactory. The statement made by Epictetus is rather plain in itself: evil has no autonomous natural existence in the world, and one can hardly doubt that Simplicius is correct in his contention that good is a ὑπόστασις, whereas evil is a παρυπόστασις, i.e., something which exists only as a counterpart of good but has no independent existence of its own. The problem lies in the comparison: in which way can the statement σκοπὸς πρὸς τὸ ἀποτυχεῖν οὐ τίθεται be applied to the notion that ἡ φύσις κακοῦ does not exist in the cosmos? Moreover, the situation is further complicated by the fact that the part of the Diatribes from which Arrianus took Ench. 27 is not extant, so that we cannot tell whether Epictetus gave a fuller exposition of the comparison. Before discussing a number of interpretations proposed by commentators, ancient and modern, I would like to stress that in principle, preference should be given to an interpretation that stays as close to the text as possible (i.e., one that does not have to adduce notions which are not expressed explicitly), and in which the parallelism between image and application is seen most directly. [introduction p. 473-474] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/eKcNERBrRo5RK9q |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1074","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1074,"authors_free":[{"id":1628,"entry_id":1074,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":15,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Boter, Gerard","free_first_name":"Gerard","free_last_name":"Boter","norm_person":{"id":15,"first_name":"Gerard ","last_name":"Boter","full_name":"Boter, Gerard ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1089766114","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Epictetus, \"Encheiridion\" 27","main_title":{"title":"Epictetus, \"Encheiridion\" 27"},"abstract":"\"Obscuras et dubius locus,\" is Wolf's comment on chapter 27 of Epictetus' Encheiridion, and rightly so. The comparison employed by Epictetus in this chapter has been interpreted in several different ways, none of which, however, is entirely or even approximately satisfactory. The statement made by Epictetus is rather plain in itself: evil has no autonomous natural existence in the world, and one can hardly doubt that Simplicius is correct in his contention that good is a \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, whereas evil is a \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c5\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, i.e., something which exists only as a counterpart of good but has no independent existence of its own.\r\n\r\nThe problem lies in the comparison: in which way can the statement \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 be applied to the notion that \u1f21 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6 does not exist in the cosmos? Moreover, the situation is further complicated by the fact that the part of the Diatribes from which Arrianus took Ench. 27 is not extant, so that we cannot tell whether Epictetus gave a fuller exposition of the comparison.\r\n\r\nBefore discussing a number of interpretations proposed by commentators, ancient and modern, I would like to stress that in principle, preference should be given to an interpretation that stays as close to the text as possible (i.e., one that does not have to adduce notions which are not expressed explicitly), and in which the parallelism between image and application is seen most directly. [introduction p. 473-474]","btype":3,"date":"1992","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eKcNERBrRo5RK9q","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":15,"full_name":"Boter, Gerard ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1074,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Mnemosyne, Fourth Series","volume":"45","issue":"4","pages":"473-481"}},"sort":["Epictetus, \"Encheiridion\" 27"]}