between the personal and the social dimensions of Stoic ethics due to the difficulty of harmonizing self-regarding and other-regarding forms of concern. By reconstructing the theory of oikeiōsis of a late Stoic, Epictetus, this paper aims to show that, at least in Epictetus’ ethics, there is no such gap
Epictetus was born circa 50 CE in Hierapolis in southern Phrygia, possibly as the son of a slave mother. At an unknown date he moved to Rome, where he became a slave in the household of Nero’s freedman Epaphroditus. Still a slave, he attended the lectures of the Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus
Encheiridion, which was composed by his pupil Arrian with the purpose of giving a comprehensive account of Epictetus' thought, has been transmitted in many sources. Besides the rich direct tradition there are three Christian adaptations, a voluminous commentary by the sixth-century philosopher Simplicius, as well as the indirect tradition.
The most recent critical edition is the
editio maior by Johannes Schweighäuser (1798), which does not meet the requirements of modern philology.
In the first part of this book there is a full account of the transmission of Epictetus'
Encheiridion and the three Christian adaptations, based on all extant manuscripts. The second part of the book contains critical editions of the four texts; for the Christian
Encheiridion of Vaticanus graecus 2231 this is the
works of Epictetus, which are now extant
, edited by
, London , Dent & sons , 1758 .
Epicteti Philosophiae monumenta
, Bde 5, bearbeitet von
, Leipzig , Weidmann , 1799–1800 .
, édité par
In this volume, Paul Robertson re-describes the form of the apostle Paul’s letters in a manner that facilitates transparent, empirical comparison with texts not typically treated by biblical scholars. Paul’s letters are best described by a set of literary characteristics shared by certain Greco-Roman texts, particularly those of Epictetus and Philodemus.
Paul Robertson theorizes a new taxonomy of Greco-Roman literature that groups Paul’s letters together with certain Greco-Roman, ethical-philosophical texts written at a roughly contemporary time in the ancient Mediterranean. This particular grouping, termed a socio-literary sphere, is defined by the shared form, content, and social purpose of its constituent texts, as well as certain general similarities between their texts’ authors.
Montanists and Christians at large, was more negative than those of Epictetus and Galen, as I shall point out.
The Montanist movement was certainly present in the time of Marcus Aurelius. It began in 171 ce according to Eusebius ( Chron. a. Abrah. 2187 or 2188 in the Armenian version; he 5.3.4), but
1 Introduction In a recent monograph, 1 I argued for formal overlaps between several roughly contemporary texts in what I termed a shared “socio-literary sphere”: the letters of the Christian apostle Paul, the Stoic popular philosopher Epictetus’ Discourses , and the Epicurean scholar Philodemus
EPICTETUS, ENCHEIRIDION 27 BY G.J. BOTER 1. "Obscurus 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
1 Socrates as Role Model Near the end of the Encheiridion , Epictetus summons us to model our lives on Socrates. Epictetus is in rare form and one imagines that his student Arrian must have been transcribing furiously in order to capture Epictetus’ incandescence: Make up your mind, therefore