We conversed1, about trivial subjects, but my mind was not in them. It was with Isaiah. I could not help marvelling2 that a native of so small and weak a country should take so wide and imperial a view of the movements of the nations. In a Roman, I could have understood it better; or in a Greek of the days of Alexander. But that a Jew—whose people was as it were the shuttlecock between the great empires surrounding it—that a Jewish prophet should think such thoughts filled me with astonishment3. Then I wondered what Epictetus would say on the administration of the world if he ever dealt with it fully4. “He,” I said, “was a Phrygian and a slave. Is it possible that he, too, like Isaiah, could speak in this imperial fashion?” Arriving somewhat late, we found the room almost filled; but my seat was vacant, and I was glad to find Glaucus next to me, in the place vacated by Arrian’s departure.
Epictetus was just beginning his first sentence. I will give it as Glaucus took it down, exactly: “Be not surprised if other animals, all except ourselves, have ready at hand the things needful for their bodily wants provided for them, not only food and drink but also bedding, and no need of sandals or blankets or clothes—while we have need of all these additional things.” He proceeded to say that the beasts were our servants, and[118] that it would be extremely inconvenient5 for us if we had “to clothe, shoe, and feed sheep and asses6! As if,” said he, “a colonel had to shoe and clothe his regiment7 before they could do the service required of them! And yet men complain, instead of being thankful!” Any single created thing, he said, would suffice to demonstrate Providence8 to a grateful mind. Then he instanced the production of milk from grass and of cheese from milk. Thence he passed from the “works” of Nature to “by-works,” such as the beard, distinguishing man from woman. This (I think) was one of his customary digressions against the fashion of smooth-skinned effeminacy: “How much more beautiful than the comb of cocks! How much more noble than the mane of lions! Therefore it was our duty to preserve God’s appointed tokens of manhood: it was our duty not to give them up, not to confuse (so far as lay in us) the classes, male and female, distinguished9 by Him.”
“Are these,” he continued, “the only works of Providence in our behalf? What praise can be proportionate to our benefits? Had we understanding, we should be ever hymning the graces He has bestowed12 on us. Whether digging, or ploughing, or eating, ought we not to sing the appropriate hymn11 to God, saying ‘Great is God, because He hath given us tools wherewith to till the ground,’ ‘Great is God, who hath given us hands, and the power of swallowing, and a stomach, and a faculty13 of growing in stature14 painlessly and insensibly, and of breathing even when we sleep’? Hymns15 and praises such as these we ought to sing on each occasion. But the greatest and most divine hymn of all should be sung in thanks for that power”—he meant the Logos—“which intelligently recognises all these blessings16, and which duly and methodically employs them. But you are silent. What then? Since you, like the common herd17, are blind to God’s glory, it was but fit that there should be some one herald18, though it be but one, to fill the place left empty by your default, and to chant the hymn that goes up to God in behalf of all. What else am I fit to do, a halting old man like me, except to sing the praises of God?”
And so he drew toward the conclusion of the first part of[119] his lecture. Were he a nightingale or a swan, he said, he would do as a nightingale or a swan—that is to say, utter mere19 sounds, songs without words, songs void of reasonable thoughts, without Logos—“But as it is, I am endowed with Logos. Accordingly I must sing hymns to God. This is my special work. This I do. Never will I abandon this post of duty, as long as it is given to me. And I invite and urge you also to the same task of song.” From this he proceeded to speak of “the things of the Logos,” or “the logical things,” as being “necessary”; and he spoke20 of the Logos as that which “articulates”—by which he meant, distinguishes the joints21 and connexions of all other things—and also as being that which accomplishes all other things. He appeared to mean that this Logos was reason; and he assumed that it is “impossible that anything should be better than reason.” But he refused to enter into the question, If the Logos within us goes wrong, what shall set it right? His language at this point was very obscure. The impression left upon me was that Logos, with him, meant two different things and that he did not distinguish them. When he sang hymns to God in accord with the Logos, I thought he must intend to include something more than reason; but when he passed on to say that “the things of the Logos” (or “the logical things”) are necessary, he seemed to mean “reason” alone.
Later on, he returned to his first subject: “When you are in the act of blaming Providence for anything, reflect, and you will recognise that it has happened in accordance with Logos.” Then, taking the case of some man supposed to have been defrauded22 of a large sum of money, he placed in his mouth the objection that, if the fraud is “in accordance with Logos,” it would seem that injustice23 is “in accordance with Logos.” For, said the objector, “the unjust man has the advantage.” “In what respect?” asked Epictetus. “In money,” says the objector. To which Epictetus replied, “True, for he is better than you are for this purpose”—he meant, for making money—“because he flatters, he casts away shame, he is always unweariedly working for money. But consider. Does he get the better of you in respect of faithfulness and honour?” Then he[120] rebuked24 us, would-be philosophers, for being angry with God for bestowing25 on us His best gifts, namely virtues26, and for allowing bad men to take away from us what was not good in itself, namely, our worldly possessions.
This view of Providence and of wealth seemed to differ from the one assumed in Isaiah and often stated by Moses and David. For they had taught me that righteousness, and truth, and obedience27 to parents, and neighbourly kindness, tend to “length of days” and to peace and prosperity on the earth—for the righteous man himself as well as for the community; and they also distinguished honest wealth, acquired by labour, from dishonest wealth acquired by greediness and injustice. But Epictetus here made no such distinction.
The Jewish poems recognised it as being, at all events on the surface, a strange thing that a righteous man should be subjected to exceptional, crushing, and continuous calamities28 by the visitations of God. Epictetus appeared to teach us that God had ordained29 some men to be restless, pushing, shameless, and greedy, that they may take away the wealth acquired honestly by the good and honest and just. God had made these rascals30 “better” than the virtuous—in rascality31! Then he called on us to admire or accept this ordinance32 or law: “Why fret33, then, fellow? You have the better gift. Remember, therefore, all of you always, and have it by heart and on the lips, This is a Law of Nature that the better should have—in the province in which he is better—the advantage of the inferior. Then none of you will fret any more.”
In his general theory, Epictetus was careful to separate himself from those who maintain that the Gods do not interfere34 with the affairs of men, or never interfere except on great and public occasions, and he approved of the words of Ulysses to the Allseeing, quoted by Socrates, “Thou seest my every motion.” If man, he said, can embrace the world in his thought, and if the air and sun can include all things in their influence, why cannot God? But this seemed to lead to the conclusion that the influence of God is being perpetually and ubiquitously exerted on men in order to produce knaves35, slaves, tyrants36, and fools: for such our Master appeared to deem the majority of mankind.
[121]
In practice, Epictetus avoided such a blasphemy37 against God, by drawing no inference as to Providence from any of the laws or institutions of men, for he appeared to regard human institutions as radically38 bad. At all events he allowed his pupils—as I have shewn above—to say that the rulers of the world are “thieves and robbers” and that the courts of justice are “courts of injustice.” His belief in Providence was—I seemed to see clearly—based on nothing but the consciousness of the Logos within himself. The Logos in the vast majority of mankind appeared to him to have done them no good: so he could not argue from that.
When someone mentioned the fate of the Emperor Galba as disproving a belief in Providence, Epictetus implied a scornful disavowal of any intention to base belief on any such historical event. Nor did he ever refer to God as controlling the movements of nations. In answer therefore to my silent question, “Does our Master see God in the history of individuals or nations?” his teaching seemed to reply “No, I see it in nothing except Socrates, Diogenes, and a few other philosophers, and also in myself. Beyond this little group of souls, though I feel myself able to infer God in everything, I cannot really infer Him in anything mental or spiritual. Hence I am driven to such physical instances as butter, cheese, stomachs, and beards!”
On leaving the lecture-room I chatted with Glaucus and tried hard to be cheerful. But how I missed Arrian! I felt inclined to turn Epicurean. The “careless” gods of Epicurus seemed at least less unloveable than the Providence of Epictetus. Too much depressed39 for any kind of study, I did not return to my lodging40 but walked out into the country by unfrequented paths, resting after mid-day in a little village inn. Coming out, toward the close of the afternoon, I found an acquaintance of mine, Apronius Rufus, standing10 in the porch and amusing himself by throwing figs41 and nuts to a crowd of boys just emerging from the doors of a neighbouring school. From scrambling42 and scuffling the boys had come to fighting—all but two or three, who held aloof43 with an air of sulky superiority; and one, I think, saw the schoolmaster in the distance. My acquaintance was attending the Epicurean classes in Nicopolis. We Cynics called[122] the followers44 of Epicurus “swine,” and I could not resist the temptation of saying, “Rufus, you are making converts. When they grow up, these little pigs will do you credit.” He laughed good-humouredly: “Not all of them, Silanus! A few, as you see yonder, remain of your persuasion45, true Cynics, that is to say, puppies or prigs. But we do pretty well. Nature is for us, though you and the schoolmaster are allied46 against us. By the way, I think I see your ally coming round the corner. I will be off. Two against Hercules are one too many. Farewell!” “Farewell!” said I, “Your wit is as much stronger than mine as your philosophy is weaker.”
“But is it weaker?” thought I, as he strode back to Nicopolis, and I in the opposite direction. Was not Apronius right in saying that Nature was on his side? Does not Providence, like Circe, throw down figs and nuts for us human creatures to make us swine? Is she not always saying to us, “Push, and be greedy! Then you will get what you want”? And did not Epictetus acquiesce47 in this, in effect, saying to the two or three non-pushers, “Be content. The others, the masses of men, are ‘better’ than you are for pushing and for kicking and for fighting like greedy swine”? But who made them “better”? Was it not Nature? And how could I feel sure that this same Nature or Providence that made “grass” (as Epictetus said) to produce “milk and butter and cheese,” did not make man to produce scrambling and scuffling and fighting—a spectacle for some amused God, who watches from the windows of heaven, like Apronius Rufus from the inn-door on earth?
After a long circuit, returning to Nicopolis, I sat down to rest in a copse when the sun was drawing towards the west. Tired out by my walk, I fell asleep. When I awoke, the sun had set and the evening star was shining. As I sat in silence gazing upon it, better thoughts were brought to me. “Five minutes,” I said, “with Hesper teach more about Providence than an hour with Epictetus.” Then it occurred to me, “But, were I Priam, and were this the evening before Troy was taken, would not Hesper shine as brightly before me? What does Hesper prove?” Presently, the lesser48 stars began to appear,[123] growing each moment in number. Then I remembered how Moses represents the Lord God appearing to Abraham (when he was as yet childless) and saying to him, “Look up to the heaven and number the stars, if thou art able to number them all. So shall thy seed be.” And what had come of it all? A nation that was no nation, a race of captives, known to us in Rome chiefly as hating pork and strangers no less than they loved their sabbaths. Then I thought, “Had Hesper any more favour for Abraham than for Priam? Perhaps the stars promised peace and prosperity to both and broke their promise! What Troy is, that Jerusalem is. Nay49, worse. Troy has produced a New Troy. Where is the New Jerusalem? And where is the great nation promised to Abraham? A flock (or flocks) of exiles, fanatics50, and slaves!”
Just then came into my mind the memory of some words about the stars in Isaiah. I had taken the book with me to lecture. So I unrolled it till I came to them: “Lift up your eyes on high and see. Who hath appointed all these? He that leadeth forth51 His host in a numbered array. He will call them all by name. Because of thy great glory, and in the might of thy strength, not one escapeth from thine eye.” Then the prophet declared that, even as the stars of heaven are made visible in the darkness, so the seed of Abraham was not hidden by any darkness from God’s eye: “Say not, O Jacob (ah, why didst thou dare to say it, O Israel?) ‘My way is hidden from God, and my God hath taken away judgment52 and hath departed from me.’ Hast thou not even now found out the truth? Hast thou not clearly heard it? The God eternal, the God that framed and fashioned the earth, even to its furthest corners, He will not faint for hunger, nor is there any fathoming53 of His wisdom. To them that hunger He giveth strength—but sorrow to them that have no grief. For hunger shall fall on the youths, and weariness on the young men, and the chosen warriors54 shall utterly55 lose strength; but they that wait patiently for God shall renew their strength; they shall put forth wings like eagles; they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk erect56 and shall not faint for hunger.”
I could not believe all this. But neither could I disbelieve it. One voice said to me, “The poet is casting on the God of[124] the stars the mantle57 that he has borrowed from the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” But another voice kept saying to me, “Wait patiently for God: He shall renew thy strength.” In the afternoon, when I had thrown myself down to rest, I had thought that I would give up the search after truth, get rid of all my books, leave Nicopolis, and go at once into the army. Now I was more hopeful. But I could not give any logical reason for my hope. Isaiah had not convinced me. Far from it! The promise to Abraham seemed still to me to have resulted in failure. I had broken off my study of Paul, almost at its commencement, in order to study Isaiah. And Isaiah, without Paul, presented many difficulties that might perplex wiser minds than mine. “Grant,” said I, “that David the son of Jesse was a great poet. Grant that Isaiah was a great prophet. Yet what were their poems and prophecies except so many pillars of vapour, or, if of substance, then substantial failures; pillars with the capital gone and the shaft58 broken, no longer sustaining anything? Their temple is burned a second time, never to be rebuilt; the rod of Jesse, cut off from the very root, with no life left in it, ‘despised indeed and rejected’ but with no compensation of being ‘exalted’ or of ‘dividing the spoils of the strong’!”
All these things I said over and over again to myself. But still another voice, deeper than my own, seemed to be repeating “Wait patiently on God and He will renew thy strength! Wait patiently! Wait!” Up to the moment of retiring to rest that night my mind was in a state of oscillation. On the one hand, Scaurus might be right, and my best course might be to give up the study of philosophy, and to prepare myself for a military career. On the other hand, there appeared nothing in these poems or prophecies of Isaiah that would make a man less fit to be a soldier. My last thought was, “I should like to see how the modern Jew, Paul, takes up the teaching of the ancient Jew, Isaiah. I have but glanced at his quotations59 as yet.” So I decided60 to examine this point on the following day.
点击收听单词发音
1 conversed | |
v.交谈,谈话( converse的过去式 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 marvelling | |
v.惊奇,对…感到惊奇( marvel的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 astonishment | |
n.惊奇,惊异 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 fully | |
adv.完全地,全部地,彻底地;充分地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 inconvenient | |
adj.不方便的,令人感到麻烦的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 asses | |
n. 驴,愚蠢的人,臀部 adv. (常用作后置)用于贬损或骂人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 regiment | |
n.团,多数,管理;v.组织,编成团,统制 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 providence | |
n.深谋远虑,天道,天意;远见;节约;上帝 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 distinguished | |
adj.卓越的,杰出的,著名的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 standing | |
n.持续,地位;adj.永久的,不动的,直立的,不流动的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 hymn | |
n.赞美诗,圣歌,颂歌 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 bestowed | |
赠给,授予( bestow的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 faculty | |
n.才能;学院,系;(学院或系的)全体教学人员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 stature | |
n.(高度)水平,(高度)境界,身高,身材 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 hymns | |
n.赞美诗,圣歌,颂歌( hymn的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 blessings | |
n.(上帝的)祝福( blessing的名词复数 );好事;福分;因祸得福 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 herd | |
n.兽群,牧群;vt.使集中,把…赶在一起 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 herald | |
vt.预示...的来临,预告,宣布,欢迎 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 mere | |
adj.纯粹的;仅仅,只不过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 spoke | |
n.(车轮的)辐条;轮辐;破坏某人的计划;阻挠某人的行动 v.讲,谈(speak的过去式);说;演说;从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 joints | |
接头( joint的名词复数 ); 关节; 公共场所(尤指价格低廉的饮食和娱乐场所) (非正式); 一块烤肉 (英式英语) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 defrauded | |
v.诈取,骗取( defraud的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 injustice | |
n.非正义,不公正,不公平,侵犯(别人的)权利 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 rebuked | |
责难或指责( rebuke的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 bestowing | |
砖窑中砖堆上层已烧透的砖 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 virtues | |
美德( virtue的名词复数 ); 德行; 优点; 长处 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 obedience | |
n.服从,顺从 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 calamities | |
n.灾祸,灾难( calamity的名词复数 );不幸之事 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 ordained | |
v.任命(某人)为牧师( ordain的过去式和过去分词 );授予(某人)圣职;(上帝、法律等)命令;判定 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 rascals | |
流氓( rascal的名词复数 ); 无赖; (开玩笑说法)淘气的人(尤指小孩); 恶作剧的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 rascality | |
流氓性,流氓集团 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 ordinance | |
n.法令;条令;条例 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 fret | |
v.(使)烦恼;(使)焦急;(使)腐蚀,(使)磨损 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 interfere | |
v.(in)干涉,干预;(with)妨碍,打扰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 knaves | |
n.恶棍,无赖( knave的名词复数 );(纸牌中的)杰克 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36 tyrants | |
专制统治者( tyrant的名词复数 ); 暴君似的人; (古希腊的)僭主; 严酷的事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
37 blasphemy | |
n.亵渎,渎神 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
38 radically | |
ad.根本地,本质地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
39 depressed | |
adj.沮丧的,抑郁的,不景气的,萧条的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
40 lodging | |
n.寄宿,住所;(大学生的)校外宿舍 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
41 figs | |
figures 数字,图形,外形 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
42 scrambling | |
v.快速爬行( scramble的现在分词 );攀登;争夺;(军事飞机)紧急起飞 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
43 aloof | |
adj.远离的;冷淡的,漠不关心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
44 followers | |
追随者( follower的名词复数 ); 用户; 契据的附面; 从动件 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
45 persuasion | |
n.劝说;说服;持有某种信仰的宗派 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
46 allied | |
adj.协约国的;同盟国的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
47 acquiesce | |
vi.默许,顺从,同意 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
48 lesser | |
adj.次要的,较小的;adv.较小地,较少地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
49 nay | |
adv.不;n.反对票,投反对票者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
50 fanatics | |
狂热者,入迷者( fanatic的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
51 forth | |
adv.向前;向外,往外 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
52 judgment | |
n.审判;判断力,识别力,看法,意见 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
53 fathoming | |
测量 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
54 warriors | |
武士,勇士,战士( warrior的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
55 utterly | |
adv.完全地,绝对地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
56 erect | |
n./v.树立,建立,使竖立;adj.直立的,垂直的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
57 mantle | |
n.斗篷,覆罩之物,罩子;v.罩住,覆盖,脸红 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
58 shaft | |
n.(工具的)柄,杆状物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
59 quotations | |
n.引用( quotation的名词复数 );[商业]行情(报告);(货物或股票的)市价;时价 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
60 decided | |
adj.决定了的,坚决的;明显的,明确的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |