Skip to content

Question

What does Epictetus say about the price we must pay for social invitations and favor?

Epictetus explains why being passed over for a dinner invitation or a compliment is not an injustice, using the plain economics of a market stall.

Updated

The short answer

Epictetus says invitations, compliments, and social favor are goods sold at a price, and the price is praise and attendance, courting and flattering the person who grants them. If you have not paid that price, you have no grounds for resentment when someone else receives the invitation instead of you, any more than a person who keeps his money has been cheated of lettuce he never bought. Wanting the reward without paying the cost makes you, in his word, insatiable.

Key points

  • Epictetus compares social invitations and favor to goods sold at a market, priced not in money but in praise and attendance.
  • If you have not paid that price, someone else receiving the invitation has not wronged you or gained an unfair advantage over you.
  • The lettuce analogy shows the exchange is fair on both sides: the buyer has the lettuce, the non-buyer has the money he kept.
  • This teaching rests on the dichotomy of control: invitations and reputation are externals, while your judgments and pursuits are up to you.
  • Epictetus does not forbid paying the price when it serves your actual advantage, but he calls it unjust and insatiable to want the good without paying for it.

The longer answer

Epictetus treats an invitation to dinner, a compliment, or a place in someone's counsel as goods sold at a price, and the price is not money. It is paid in praise and attendance: frequenting a person's door, waiting on him, flattering him (Handbook 25). If you have not paid that price, you have no grounds to resent someone who has.

The common misreading is to hear this as cynical advice: play the game, flatter the powerful, and you will get invited too. That is not the point. Epictetus is not coaching you to pay the price. He is dissolving the sense of injustice that comes from wanting the reward without the cost. Notice the structure of his example. Lettuce sells for a set amount. If someone else buys it and you keep your money, you have not been cheated: "as he has the lettuce, so you have the fifty cents which you did not give" (Handbook 25). The transaction was fair on both sides. Nobody owes you lettuce for money you refused to spend.

Applied to social life, the logic is exact. Someone is preferred before you at an entertainment. Either what he has gained is good or it is not. If it is good, be glad he has it, since goods should make you glad wherever they land. If it is not really good, then you have lost nothing by lacking it, so there is nothing to grieve (Handbook 25). Either way, the sense of injury dissolves once you see the exchange clearly.

This connects to the dichotomy Epictetus lays out at the start of the Handbook: some things are up to us, and some are not. Opinion, pursuit, desire, and aversion are up to us. Body, property, reputation, and command are not (Handbook 1). An invitation, a compliment, a seat at the table of the powerful, these are all externals, not up to us in the strict sense. What is up to us is whether we pay the asking price of praise and attendance to get them. Epictetus calls the person who refuses to pay yet still wants the invitation unjust and insatiable, a blockhead who wants something for nothing (Handbook 25). The word unjust matters. It is not the host who has wronged you. You are the one making an unreasonable demand, expecting a good to come to you without meeting its actual terms.

This is the same structure Epictetus dramatizes through Zeus's speech in the Discourses: the gods could not make your body or your property free from hindrance, because these depend on the world outside you. What was given fully to you is the faculty of pursuing and avoiding, desiring and being averse, the faculty of using impressions well (Discourses I 1). An invitation to supper belongs to the world of hindered things, things that depend on other people's judgments and your willingness to court them. Your peace does not have to depend on winning that market.

None of this tells you whether to pay the price. Sometimes praise and attendance bought at the cost of your honesty are not worth what they purchase, and Epictetus is clear you should give the value "if it is for your advantage" (Handbook 25), meaning if it actually serves your good, not merely your standing. The practical use of this passage is narrower and more immediate than a rule about ambition. The next time you feel the sting of being overlooked, ask what you actually paid toward the thing you wanted. If you did not pay the going rate in attendance or flattery, you have not been cheated. You have simply kept your fifty cents.

Primary passages

You are unjust, then, and insatiable, if you are unwilling to pay the price for which these things are sold, and would have them for nothing. For how much is lettuce sold? Fifty cents, for instance. If another, then, paying fifty cents, takes the lettuce, and you, not paying it, go without them, don't imagine that he has gained any advantage over you. For as he has the lettuce, so you have the fifty cents which you did not give.

Epictetus, Handbook 25 Read in context

The market analogy that carries the whole teaching: a fair exchange, not a theft.

So, in the present case, you have not been invited to such a person's entertainment, because you have not paid him the price for which a supper is sold. It is sold for praise; it is sold for attendance. Give him then the value, if it is for your advantage. But if you would, at the same time, not pay the one and yet receive the other, you are insatiable, and a blockhead.

Epictetus, Handbook 25 Read in context

Epictetus names the actual currency: praise and attendance, not money.

Is anyone preferred before you at an entertainment, or in a compliment, or in being admitted to a consultation? If these things are good, you ought to be glad that he has gotten them; and if they are evil, don't be grieved that you have not gotten them.

Epictetus, Handbook 25 Read in context

The opening move: either way, there is no real grievance.

Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions.

Epictetus, Handbook 1 Read in context

The dichotomy of control that frames why invitations and favor are externals, not goods properly speaking.

this body is not yours, but it is clay finely tempered. And since I was not able to do for you what I have mentioned, I have given you a small portion of us, this faculty of pursuing an object and avoiding it, and the faculty of desire and aversion, and, in a word, the faculty of using the appearances of things

Epictetus, Discourses I 1 Read in context

Zeus's speech shows why only the faculty of choice, and not social standing, is fully ours.

Important distinctions

Paying the price versus resenting not paying it

Epictetus never says you must court favor through flattery and attendance. He says that if you choose not to pay that price, you cannot also claim the reward, and you certainly cannot claim to have been wronged. The teaching targets the resentment, not the choice of whether to seek favor at all.

The value of the thing versus the fairness of the exchange

Whether an invitation or a compliment is actually good is a separate question from whether the transaction for it was fair. Handbook 25 opens by noting that if what the other person gained is not truly good, you have lost nothing worth grieving over. The fairness of the market applies either way.

Objections and replies

This sounds like it excuses corrupt patronage systems

Describing praise and attendance as a fair price for favor can sound like Epictetus is normalizing flattery and cronyism as simply how the world works, rather than criticizing it.

Reply

Epictetus is diagnosing your reaction, not endorsing the system. His point is that once you understand the actual terms of the exchange, you stop feeling cheated when you decline to pay them. He explicitly ties paying the price to your own advantage, not to praising the practice itself.

Not every exclusion is a fair market transaction

Some exclusions from favor or invitation involve real injustice, discrimination, or the abuse of power, not a simple failure to court someone properly. Treating all exclusion as a matter of unpaid dues can flatten real wrongs.

Reply

Handbook 25 is a narrow example about entertainments, compliments, and consultations among people who trade in mutual courting, and it works from within that limited case. Epictetus's broader ethics, including his claim that only your own judgments and actions are truly yours, still leaves room to judge the actions of others as unjust when they are.

Practice this in Stoa

Guided courses in the Stoa app that put this into daily practice.

Related questions

Podcast discussions

Sources

  1. Epictetus, Discourses I Primary text, Stoa library
  2. Epictetus, Handbook Primary text, Stoa library