The gods either have power or they have not. If they have not, why pray to them? If they have, then instead of praying to be granted or spared such-and-such a thing, why not rather pray to be delivered from dreading it, or lusting for it, or grieving over it? Clearly, if they can help a man at all, they can help him in this way.
[Ἤτοι οὐδὲν δύνανται οἱ θεοὶ ἢ δύνανται. εἰ μὲν οὖν μὴ δύνανται, τί εὔχῃ; εἰ δὲ δύνανται, διὰ τί οὐχὶ μᾶλλον εὔχῃ. διδόναι αὐτοὺς τὸ μήτε φοβεῖσθαί τι τούτων μήτε ἐπιθυμεῖν τινος τούτων μήτε λυπεῖσθαι ἐπί τινι τούτων, μᾶλλον ἤπερ τὸ μὴ παρεῖναί τι τούτων ἢ τὸ παρεῖναι; πάντως γάρ, εἰ δύνανται συνεργεῖν ἀνθρώποις, καὶ εἰς ταῦτα δύνανται συνεργεῖν.]
Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) Roman emperor (161-180), Stoic philosopher
Meditations [To Himself; Τὰ εἰς ἑαυτόν], Book 9, ch. 40 (9.40) (AD 161-180) [tr. Staniforth (1964)]
(Source)
(Source (Greek)). Alternate translations:Either the Gods can do nothing for us at all, or they can still and allay all the distractions and distempers of thy mind. If they can do nothing, why doest thou pray? If they can, why wouldst not thou rather pray, that they will grant unto thee, that thou mayst neither fear, nor lust after any of those worldly things which cause these distractions and distempers of it? Why not rather, that thou mayst not at either their absence or presence, be grieved and discontented: than either that thou mayst obtain them, or that thou mayst avoid them? For certainly it must needs be, that if the Gods can help us in anything, they may in this kind also.
[tr. Casaubon (1634)]Either the Gods have power to assist us, or they have not. If they have not, what does praying to them signifie? If they have, why don't you rather pray that they would Discharge your Desires, than Satisfie them; and rather set you above the Passion of Fear, than keep away the Thing you are afraid of? For if the Gods can help us, no doubt they can help us to be Wiser.
[tr. Collier (1701), 9.42]Either the Gods have no power at all [to aid men in any thing;] or they have power. If, then, they have no power, why do you pray? But if they have power, why don’t you chuse to pray to them to enable you, neither to fear any of these things, [which are not in our own power] nor desire any of them, nor be grieved about any of them; rather than for the having them, or the not having them. For, most certainly, if they can aid men at all, they can also aid them in this.
[tr. Hutcheson/Moor (1742)]Either the Gods have power to assist mankind, or they have not. If they have not, why do you pray to them? If they have that power, why do you not rather pray, "that they would enable you neither to fear nor to desire any thing; nor to be more grieved fro the want, than for the possession of it?" For, certainly, if they have the power to co-operate with the endeavours of men, they can do it in this respect.
[tr. Graves (1792)]Either the gods have no power or they have power. If, then, they have no power, why dost thou pray to them? But if they have power, why dost thou not pray for them to give thee the faculty of not fearing any of the things which thou fearest, or of not desiring any of the things which thou desirest, or not being pained at anything, rather than pray that any of these things should not happen or happen? for certainly if they can co-operate with men, they can co-operate for these purposes.
[tr. Long (1862)]Either the gods have power to assist us, or they have not. If they have not, what does praying to them help you? If they have, why do you not rather pray that they would remove your fears and moderate your desires, and rather keep you from grieving for any of these things, than keep away one thing and grant another? For if the gods can help us, no doubt they can help us to be wiser.
[tr. Collier/Zimmern (1887)]The gods either have power, or they have not. If they have not, why pray at all? If they have, why not pray for deliverance from teh fear, or the desire, or the pain, which the thing causes, rather than for the withholding or the giving of the particular thing? Assuredly, if they can help men at all, this is the way of help.
[tr. Rendall (1898)]Either the Gods have power or they have none. If they have no power, why do you pray? If they have power, why do you not choose to pray to them for power neither to fear, nor to desire, nor to be grieved over any of these external things, rather than for their presence or their absence? Surely, if the Gods can aid man at all, they can aid him in this.
[tr. Hutcheson/Chrystal (1902)]Either the Gods have no power or they have power. If they have no power, why pray to them? But if they have power, why not rather pray that they should give thee freedom from fear of any of these things and from lust for any of these things and from grief at any of these things [rather] than that they should grant this or refuse that. For obviously if they can assist men at all, they can assist them in this.
[tr. Haines (Loeb) (1916)]The gods are either powerless or powerful. If then they are powerless, why do you pray? But if they are powerful, why not rather pray them for the gift to fear none of these things, to desire none of them, to sorrow for none of them, rather than that any one of them should be present or absent? For surely if they can co-operate with man, they can co-operate to these ends.
[tr. Farquharson (1944)]The gods either lack power or they have power. If they are powerless, why do you pray to them? But if they have power, why do you not pray to them to grant you the ability neither to fear any of these things nor to desire them, nor to be distressed by them, rather than praying that some of them should fall to you and others not? For surely, if the gods have any power to help human beings, they can help them in this.
[tr. Hard (1997 ed.)]Either the gods have power or they don't. If they don't, why pray? If they do, then why not pray for something else instead of for things to happen or not to happen? Pray not to feel fear. Or desire. Or grief. If they gods can do anything, they can surely do that for us.
[tr. Hays (2003)]Either the gods have power or they do not. Now, if they have no power, why pray? If they do have power, why not pray for their gift of freedom from all worldly fear, desire, or regret, rather than for the presence or absence of this or that? Certainly, if the gods can cooperate with men, they can cooperate to these ends.
[tr. Hammond (2006)]Either the gods have power or they do not. If they do not, why do you pray? But if they do have power, why aren't you praying that they give you the power not to fear, crave, or be troubled by a thing, rather than pryaing to have that thing or not have it? For if the gods can work with us, then surely they can work with us toward this end.
[tr. Needleman/Piazza (2008)]The gods either lack power or they have power. Now if they are powerless, why do you pray to them? But if they have poer, why do you not pray to them to gran you the ability neither to fear any of these things nor to desire them, nor to be distressed by them, rather than praying that some of them should fall to you and others not? For surely, if the gods have any power to help human beings, they can help them in this.
[tr. Hard (2011 ed.)]
Quotations about:
gifts from God
Note not all quotations have been tagged, so Search may find additional quotes on this topic.
Our Lord commonly giveth Riches to such gross asses to whom he affordeth nothing else that is good.
[Darumb gibt unser Herrgott gemeiniglich Reichtum den groben Eseln, denen er sonst nichts gönnt.]
Martin Luther (1483-1546) German priest, theologian, writer, religious reformer
Table Talk [Colloquies; Tischreden] (1566) [tr. Bell (1652)]
This is a common translation given in various places. A more complete one, Colloquia Mensalia [Divine Discourses], ch. 4 "Of the Nature of the World," "Wealth is the least gift of GOD" [tr. Bell (1659, 2d ed.)]:Riches is the smallest thing on earth, and the least gift that God hath bestowed on mankinde. What is it in comparison of God's Word; yea, what is it to bee compared with corporal gifts, as beautie, health, &c. nay, what is it to the gifts of the minde, as understanding, Art, wisdom; &c. yet are men so eager upon it, that no labor, travail, nor danger is regarded in getting of Riches: there is in it neither Materialis, formalis, efficiens & finalis caussa, nor anie thing els that good is, therefore our Lord God commonly givet Riches to such gross Asses, to whom hee affordeth nothing els that is good.
This same passage is quoted and cited in The Apophthegmes of Erasmus (1471) [tr. Udall (1877 reprint of the 1564 ed.), in the Appendix to discuss the principle "Gold masters all things," related to Erasmus' work on Philippus, sec. 13. It is not Erasmus' work, as is sometimes suggested, but that of Robert Roberts, the editor.
The Latin bits refer to Aristotle's four causes or reasons for something to exist.
For similar sentiments, see also La Bruyere (1688), Steele (1710), Swift (1720).
The variations and abridgments of Luther's Table Talk are legion, even in variations of the same translator's text (Henry Bell, who was the first English translator of the work). The variants are usually either to simplify or update the language to contemporary standards, or to bowdlerize Luther's rough language (e.g., "groben Eseln" [coarse asses]).
(Source (German)). Alternate translations:Riches is the smallest thing on earth, and the least gift that God hath bestowed on mankind. What is it in comparison of God's Word? yea, what is it to be compared with corporal gifts; as beauty, health, &c. ? nay, what is it to the gifts of the mind; as understanding, art, wisdom, &c.? Yet are men so eager after it, that no labour, travel, nor danger is regarded in getting of riches. There is in it neither Materialis, formalis, efficiens et finalis causa, nor anything else that is good; therefore our Lord God commonly giveth riches to such from whom he withholds all spiritual good.
[tr. Bell (1650), 1791 ed.]Riches is the smallest thing on earth, and the least gift that God bestowed on mankind. What is it in comparison of God's Word? yea, what is it to be compared with corporal gifts; as beauty, health, &c? nay, what is it to the gifts of the mind; as understanding, art, wisdom, &c. Yet are men so eager after it, that no labour, travel, nor danger is regarded in getting of riches, there is in it neither matter, form, effect, or cause, or any thing else that is good; therefore our Lord God commonly giveth riches to such, from whom he withholds all spiritual good.
[tr. Bell (1650), ed. Kerby (1818)]Wealth is the smallest thing on earth, the least gift that God has bestowed on mankind. What is it in comparison with God's Word -- what, in comparison with corporal gifts, as beauty, health, &c.? -- nay, what is it to the gifts of the mind, as understanding, wisdom, &c.? Yet are men so eager after it, that no labour, pains, or risk is regarded in the acquisition of riches. Wealth has in it neither material, formal, efficient nor final cause, nor anything else that is good; therefore our Lord God commonly gives riches to those from whom he withholds spiritual good.
[tr. Hazlitt (1847), "Of the nature of the world," # 167]Wealth is the least important of all things upon the earth, the smallest gift that God has bestowed on man. What is it, compared to the Word of God? Yes, what is it, compared even to bodily gifts and beauty? What is it, compared to the gifts of the mind? Yet people strive so for it! By no category of logic can [wealth] be called good — for its substance, its quality, as a means or as an end. Therefore God gives it commonly to coarse fools, to whom he means no good.
[tr. Smith / Gallinger (1915), ch. 36 "Miscellaneous"]Riches are the most insignificant things on earth, the smallest gift that God can give a man. What are they in comparison with the Word of God? In fact, what are they in comparison even with physical endowments and beauty? What are they in comparison with gifts of the mind? And yet we act as if this were not so! The matter, form, effect, and goal of riches are worthless. That's why our Lord God generally gives riches to crude asses to whom he doesn't give anything else.
[ed. French (2017?), winter of 1542-1543]
In vain do they think themselves innocent who appropriate to their own use alone those goods which God gave in common; by not giving to others that which they themselves receive, they become homicides and murderers, inasmuch as in keeping for themselves those things which would have alleviated the sufferings of the poor, we may say that they every day cause the death of as many persons as they might have fed and did not.
Gregory I (c. 540 - 604) Bishop of Rome, liturgist, Latin Father, Doctor of the Church [Gregorius I, Saint Gregory the Great, Saint Gregory the Dialogist]
(Attributed)
(Source)
Quoted in George D. Herron, Between Caesar and Jesus, ch. 4 "Christian Doctrine and Private Property" (1899).
Of all creation’s bounty realized,
God’s greatest gift, the gift in which mankind
is most like Him, the gift by Him most prized,
is the freedom he bestowed upon the will.
All his intelligent creatures, and they alone,
were so endowed, and so endowed are still.[Lo maggior don che Dio per sua larghezza
fesse creando, e a la sua bontate
più conformato, e quel ch’e’ più apprezza,
fu de la volontà la libertate;
di che le creature intelligenti,
e tutte e sole, fuore e son dotate.]Dante Alighieri (1265-1321) Italian poet
The Divine Comedy [Divina Commedia], Book 3 “Paradiso,” Canto 5, l. 19ff (5.19-24) [Beatrice] (1320) [tr. Ciardi (1970)]
(Source)
(Source (Italian)). Alternate translations:That gem above all price by wifdom giv'n.
The most distinguish'd boon of fav'ring Heav'n,
The Stamp of Godhead on the human breast,
By him most priz'd, is Liberty of Choice;
A gift by none beneath the ambient Skies
But happy rationals alone possest.
[tr. Boyd (1802), st. 5]Supreme of gifts, which God creating gave
Of his free bounty, sign most evident
Of goodness, and in his account most priz’d,
Was liberty of will, the boon wherewith
All intellectual creatures, and them sole
He hath endow’d.
[tr. Cary (1814)]The greatest gift that God, creating, gave
Of his great bounty, and his goodness cost,
And that which he appreciated the most,
Was human liberty and our free will;
With which the creatures of intelligence,
And they alone, were dowered as with sense.
[tr. Bannerman (1850)]The greatest gift that in his largess God
Creating made, and unto his own goodness
Nearest conformed, and that which he doth prize
Most highly, is the freedom of the will,
Wherewith the creatures of intelligence
Both all and only were and are endowed.
[tr. Longfellow (1867)]The greatest gift which God of His bounty made in creating, and the most conformed to His goodness, and that which He most values, was the freedom of the will, wherewith the creatures that have intelligence all, and they only, were and are endowed.
[tr. Butler (1885)]The greatest gift which God's creating grace
Made in His largess, to His clemency
The most conformed, and prized as first in place
Was of the will the perfect liberty,
With which the creatures of intelligence
Were dowered, and are, and they alone.
[tr. Minchin (1885)]The greatest gift which God in His largess bestowed in creating, and the most conformed unto His goodness and that which He esteems the most, was the freedom of the will, with which all the creatures of intelligence, and they alone, were and are endowed.
[tr. Norton (1892)]The greatest gift God of his largess made at the creation, and the most conformed to his own excellence, and which he most prizeth,
was the will's liberty, wherewith creatures intelligent, both all and only, were and are endowed.
[tr. Wicksteed (1899)]The greatest gift that God in His bounty made in creation, the most conformable to His goodness and the one He accounts the most precious, was the freedom of the will, with which the creatures with intelligence, all and only these, were and are endowed.
[tr. Sinclair (1939)]Of all the gifts God in His bounty extreme
Made when creating, most conformable
To His own goodness, and in His esteem
Most precious, was the liberty of the will,
With which creatures that are intelligent
Were all endowed, they only, and are so still.
[tr. Binyon (1943)]The greatest gift of God’s largesse, when He
Created all, most prized by Him, and best,
As most akin to His own quality,
Was the will's freedom, crown of all the rest,
Whereof all creatures made intelligent,
They all, they only, were and are possessed.
[tr. Sayers/Reynolds (1962)]The greatest gift which God in His bounty
bestowed in creating, and to His own goodness
the most conformed, and that which He prizes the most,
was of the will the freedom,
with which the creatures that have intelligence,
they all and they alone, were and are endowed.
[tr. Singleton (1975)]The greatest gift which God in his open-handedness
Gave in creation, and the gift which most conformed
To his own excellence, and which he most values,
Was that of freedom of the will,
With which creatures created intelligent,
Each and all of them, were and are endowed.
[tr. Sisson (1981)]The greatest gift the magnanimity
of God, as He created, gave, the gift
most suited to His goodness, gift that He
most prizes, was the freedom of the will;
those beings that have intellect -- all these
and none but these -- received and do receive this gift.
[tr. Mandelbaum (1984)]The greatest gift that our bounteous Lord
bestowed as the Creator, in creating,
the gift He cherishes the most, the one
most like Himself, was freedom of the will,
All creatures with intelligence, and they
alone, were so endowed both then and now.
[tr. Musa (1984)]The greatest gift that ever in his bountifulness God gave in creating, and the most conformed to his goodness, the one that is most prized,
was the freedom of the will, with which the creatures with intelligence, all of them and only they, were and are endowed.
[tr. Durling (2011)]The greatest gift that God made at the Creation, out of his munificence, the one that most fitted his supreme goodness, and which he values most, is Free Will, with which intelligent creatures, all and sundry, were, and are, endowed.
[tr. Kline (2002)]The greatest gift that God, in spacious deed,
made, all-creating -- and most nearly formed
to His liberality, most prized by Him --
was liberty in actions of the will,
with which all creatures of intelligence --
and they alone -- both were and are endowed.
[tr. Kirkpatrick (2007)]The greatest gift that God in His largesse
gave to creation, the most attuned
to His goodness and that He accounts most dear,
was the freedom of the will:
all creatures possessed of intellect,
all of them and they alone, were and are so endowed.
[tr. Hollander/Hollander (2007)]The greatest gift that God, in infinite bounty,
Bestowed on His creation, and the quality
Most like His goodness, as well as what He prices,
Was freedom of will, granted only to creatures
Of intelligence -- exclusively for them,
No others thus endowed.
[tr. Raffel (2010)]
Talent is God-given; be humble. Fame is man-given; be thankful. Conceit is self-given; be careful.
Riches are a trust. … Power is a trust. So also is genius or every degree of wisdom. … Talents are a trust, too; that is the condition of their increase. They must be put out to use, or they will ruin the steward.
Insist on yourself; never imitate.
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882) American essayist, lecturer, poet
Essay (1841), “Self-Reliance,” Essays: First Series, No. 2
(Source)
This essay was inspired by his reading of Walter Savage Landor in 1833, with passages pulled from his lecture "Individualism," last in his course on "The Philosophy of History" (1836–1837), with other passages from the lectures "School," "Genius," and "Duty" in his course on "Human Life" (1838–1839).
There is a variety of gifts but always the same Spirit; there are all sorts of service to be done, but always to the same Lord; working in all sorts of different ways in different people, it is the same God who is working in all of them.
[Διαιρέσεις δὲ χαρισμάτων εἰσίν τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ Πνεῦμα. καὶ διαιρέσεις διακονιῶν εἰσιν καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς Κύριος. καὶ διαιρέσεις ἐνεργημάτων εἰσίν (καὶ) ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς Θεός ὁ ἐνεργῶν τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν.]
The Bible (The New Testament) (AD 1st - 2nd C) Christian sacred scripture
Book 7. 1st Letter to the Corinthians 12: 4ff (1 Cor 12:4-6) [JB (1966)]
(Source)
(Source (Greek)). Alternate translations:Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
[KJV (1611)]There are different kinds of spiritual gifts, but the same Spirit gives them. There are different ways of serving, but the same Lord is served. There are different abilities to perform service, but the same God gives ability to all for their particular service.
[GNT (1976)]There are many different gifts, but it is always the same Spirit; there are many different ways of serving, but it is always the same Lord. There are many different forms of activity, but in everybody it is the same God who is at work in them all.
[NJB (1985)]There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.
[NIV (2011 ed.)]There are different spiritual gifts but the same Spirit; and there are different ministries and the same Lord; and there are different activities but the same God who produces all of them in everyone.
[CEB (2011)]Now there are varieties of gifts but the same Spirit, and there are varieties of services but the same Lord, and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone.
[NRSV (2021 ed.)]
The wise lover does not consider so much the lover’s gift, as the giver’s love. He pays more attention to the giver’s affection than to the gift’s value, and he places less value on all gifts than he does on the beloved.
[Prudens amator non tam donum amantis, quam dantis considerat amorem. Affectum potius attendit, quam censum, et infra dilectum omnia data ponit.]
Thomas à Kempis (c. 1380-1471) German-Dutch priest, author
The Imitation of Christ [De Imitatione Christi], Book 3, ch. 6, v. 2 (3.6.2) (c. 1418-27) [tr. Creasy (1989)]
(Source)
(Source (Latin)). Alternate translations:He that loves prudently, keeps his Eyes upon the Giver, considers the Kindness and Disposition of his Friend, and values the Gift by that, not by his own Quality and Instrinsick Worth.
[tr. Stanhope (1696; 1706 ed.), The Christian's Pattern]And he that loves with purity, considers not the gift of the lover, but the love of the giver: he values the affection more than the tokens of it: esteems his beloved infinitely beyond the benefits he confers.
[tr. Payne (1803), 3.5.1]A prudent lover considereth not so much the gift of his lover, as the love of the giver. He rather esteemeth the good will, then the value, and placeth all gifts under his beloved.
[tr. Page (1639), 3.6.5]He that loves prudently, keeps his eyes upon the giver, considers the kindness and disposition of his friend, and values the gift by that, not by its own quality and intrinsic worth.
[tr. Stanhope (1696; 1809 ed.), The Christian's Pattern]A considerate lover regardeth not so much the gift of Him who loves him, as the love of the Giver,He esteems the good will rather than the value [of the gift,] and sets all gifts below Him whom he loves.
[ed. Parker (1841)]He that loves with purity, considers not the gift of the lover, but the love of the giver: he values the affection more than the tokens of it, and places all gifts infinitely below the donor.
[tr. Dibdin (1851), 3.5]A wise lover considers not so much the gift of the lover as the love of the giver. He looks more at the goodwill than the value, and sets his beloved above all his gifts.
[ed. Bagster (1860)]A wise lover considereth not so much the gift of his lover as he doth the love of the giver. He regardeth more the love than the gift, and accounteth all gifts little in comparison of his Beloved, who giveth them to him.
[tr. Whitford/Raynal (1530/1871)]The prudent lover considereth not the gift of the lover so much as the love of the giver. He looketh for the affection more than the value, and setteth all gifts lower than the Beloved.
[tr. Benham (1874), 3.6.4]A considerate lover regardeth not so much the gift of him who loves him, as the love of the giver. He esteems the good will rather than the value of the gift, and sets all gifts below him whom he loves.
[tr. Anon. (1901)]The wise lover regards not so much the gift of Him Who loves as the love of Him Who gives. He regards the affection of the Giver rather than the value of the gift, and sets his Beloved above all gifts.
[tr. Croft/Bolton (1940)]The wise lover does not so much consider a gift from the beloved, as the love of the giver. He turns to the feeling rather than the value, and sets all gifts below the one loved.
[tr. Daplyn (1952)]A wise lover values not so much the gift of the lover, as the love of the giver. He esteems the affection above the gift, and values every gift far below the Beloved.
[tr. Sherley-Price (1952)]An experienced lover heeds not so much the gift of the lover as the love of him that gave it. What he looks for is affection, not money; his Beloved is higher in his eyes than any gift.
[tr. Knox-Oakley (1959)]A wise lover does not look at the gift of the one who loves him, but at the love of the giver. He weighs the affection and not the value; and he thinks more of the Beloved than of what the Beloved has to give.
[tr. Knott (1962)]The prudent lover considers not so much the lover's gift as the love of the giver. He looks at the love that gave the gift rather than the cost. He places the beloved above all.
[tr. Rooney (1979)]
