First move: do not demand the impossible. The longest passage in the book and the most systematic: not an aphorism but a protocol of five successive devices against anger. The first is modal — meeting another's shamelessness (ἀναισχυντία), ask yourself whether it is possible that there be no shameless men in the world. It is not — therefore μὴ ἀπαίτει τὸ ἀδύνατον, "do not demand the impossible." Anger is exposed here as a logical error: it demands that a kind of thing not exist, and that this specimen not belong to its kind. The same argument at 5.17 and 4.6 (the image of the fig-tree that has juice). Marcus expressly orders this kept EXERCISE"ready to hand" (πρόχειρον) for the knave, the faithless man, and everyone who TERMdoes wrong — a formula as instrument, not a one-off observation. The result of the first move is stated not as "endure" but as εὐμενέστερος ἔσῃ — "you will become kinder."
Second move: every vice has its antidote. TERMNature has given man, against each fault, the corresponding TERMvirtue as an ἀντιφάρμακον: against the ἀγνώμων (the unfeeling, ungrateful man) — πρᾳότης, gentleness; against another sort, some other power. Anger is thus not only a logical error but an unused instrument: the needed quality already lies at hand. Hence the third move, the pedagogical one: μεταδιδάσκειν, to "re-teach" the man gone astray, since TERMeveryone who errs "misses the mark set before him" (ἀφαμαρτάνει τοῦ προκειμένου) and is therefore in error rather than in malice (cf. 9.11: correct by teaching if you can; and the gods too are indulgent to such men).
Third move: but have you been harmed? τί δὲ καὶ βέβλαψαι; — the question that turns the conversation from the offender back to oneself. None of those at whom you boil has done anything DOGMAby which your διάνοια would become worse; and TERM"your evil and what is harmful to you" has its whole ὑπόστασις precisely there — in the ruling part, and nowhere else. Hence the fourth move, the counter-reproach: what is καινὸν ἢ ξένον in it, if the uninstructed man (ἀπαίδευτος) does what an uninstructed man does? The blame is rather yours — you did not expect it, though TERMreason gave you every ἀφορμή ("point of purchase") for foreseeing that this man would do exactly this. You forgot, and are amazed. This is premeditation in its negative form: anger is the price of failing to reckon.
Fifth move: the kindness given outright. The subtlest part. When you complain of faithlessness or ingratitude, "turn to yourself" (εἰς σεαυτὸν ἐπιστρέφου): the fault is doubly yours — either you trusted a man of that disposition (διάθεσις), expecting fidelity against his constitution, or you gave the kindness "not conclusively" (μὴ καταληκτικῶς), not in such a way as to take the whole fruit from the act itself. The second is the Stoic core: DOGMAthe wage of a virtuous act is the act, and to require more is DOGMAto miss that an action "according to your own nature" is already complete. Hence the image: MOTIFthe eye does not demand a recompense for seeing, nor the feet for walking. As the organs, working according to their own constitution (κατὰ τὴν ἰδίαν κατασκευήν), "have what is their own", so man, born εὐεργετικός, having done something benevolent or otherwise TERMco-operative, has already "done what he was constituted for, and has what is his own" (ἔχει τὸ ἑαυτοῦ). Cf. 7.73 and 7.74; the nine-headed "therapy of anger" at Med. 11.18. The governing discipline is action, the sustaining one assent.
Notes on Long's version. Three places where Long departs from the Greek and the modernization has been brought back to the original: (1) ἀγνώμων means "unfeeling, ungrateful", not "the stupid man"; (2) τί δὲ καινὸν ἢ ξένον γέγονεν is "what new or strange thing has happened", where Long introduces a superfluous "what harm is done"; (3) εἰς τὰ μέσα συνεργητικόν is "co-operative in the sphere of the intermediate (indifferent) things", the technical Stoic τὰ μέσα, smoothed by Long into "conducive to the common interest". In (3) Rogovin follows Long's sense («общему благу») — kept verbatim.