[73] “Now when Heracles beheld the woman, he was abashed and blushes mantled his cheeks, for he felt that respect and reverence for her which a good son feels for a noble mother. Then he asked Hermes which of the deities she was, and he replied, ‘Lo, that is the blessed Lady Royalty, child of King Zeus.’ And Heracles rejoiced and took courage in her presence. And again he asked about the women who were with her. ‘Who are they?’ said he; ‘how decorous and stately, like men in countenance!’ [74] ‘Behold,’ he replied, ‘she who sits there at her right hand, whose glance is both fierce and gentle, is Justice, aglow with a surpassing and resplendent beauty. Beside her sits Civic Order, who is very much like her and differs but slightly in appearance. [75] On the other side is a woman exceeding beautiful, daintily attired, and smiling benignly; they call her Peace. But he who stands near Royalty, just beside the sceptre and somewhat in front of it, a strong man, grey-haired and proud, has the name of Law; but he has also been called Right Reason, Counsellor, Coadjutor, without whom these women are not permitted to take any action or even to purpose one.’
[76] “With all that he heard and saw Heracles was delighted, and he paid close attention, determined never to forget it. But when they had come down from the higher peak and were at the entrance to Tyranny, Hermes said, ‘Look this way and behold the other woman. It is with her that the majority of men are infatuated and to win her they give themselves much trouble of every kind, committing murder, wretches that they are, son often conspiring against father, father against son, and brother against brother, since they covet and count as felicity that which is the greatest evil — power conjoined with folly.’ [77] He then began by showing Heracles the nature of the entrance, explaining that whereas only one pathway appeared to view, that being about as described above — perilous and skirting the very edge of the precipice — yet there were many unseen and hidden corridors, and that the entire region was undermined on every side and tunnelled, no doubt up to the very throne, and that all the passages and bypaths were smeared with blood and strewn with corpses. Through none, however, of these passages did Hermes lead him, but along the outside one that was less befouled, because, I think, Heracles was to be a mere observer.
[78] “When they entered, they discovered Tyranny seated aloft, of set purpose counterfeiting and making herself like to Royalty, but, as she imagined, on a far loftier and more splendid throne, since it was not only adorned with innumerable carvings, but embellished besides with inlaid patterns of gold, ivory, amber, ebony, and substances of every colour. Her throne, however, was not secure upon its foundation nor firmly settled, but shook and slouched upon its legs. [79] And in general things were in disorder, everything suggesting vainglory, ostentation, and luxury — many sceptres, many tiaras and diadems for the head. Furthermore, in her zeal to imitate the character of the other woman, instead of the friendly smile Tyranny wore a leer of false humility, and instead of a glance of dignity she had an ugly and forbidding scowl. [80] But in order to assume the appearance of pride, she would not glance at those whom came into her presence but looked over their heads disdainfully. And so everybody hated her, and she herself ignored everybody. She was unable to sit with composure, but would cast her eyes incessantly in every direction, frequently springing up from her throne. She hugged her gold to her bosom in a disgusting manner and then in terror would fling it from her in a heap, then she would forthwith snatch at whatever any passer-by might have, were it never so little. [81] Her raiment was of many colours, purple, scarlet and saffron, with patches of white, too, showing here and there from her skirts, since her cloak was torn in many places. From her countenance glowed all manners of colours according to whether she felt terror or anguish or suspicion or anger; while at one moment she seemed prostrate with grief, at another she appeared to be in an exaltation of joy. At one time a quite wanton smile would come over her face, but at the next moment she would be in tears. [82] There was also a throng of women about her, but they resembled in no respect those whom I have described as in attendance upon Royalty. These were Cruelty, Insolence, Lawlessness, and Faction, all of whom were bent upon corrupting her and bringing her to ignoble ruin. And instead of Friendship, Flattery was there, servile and avaricious and no less ready for treachery than any of the others, nay rather, zealous above all things to destroy.
[83] “Now when Heracles had viewed all this also to his heart’s content, Hermes asked him which of the two scenes pleased him and which of the two women. ‘Why, it is the other one,’ said he, ‘whom I admire and love, and she seems to me a veritable goddess, enviable and worthy to be accounted blest; this second woman, on the other hand, I consider so utterly odious and abominable that I would gladly thrust her down from this peak and thus put an end to her.’ Whereupon Hermes commended Heracles for this utterance and repeated it to Zeus, who entrusted him with the kingship over all mankind as he considered him equal to the trust. [84] And so wherever Heracles discovered a tyranny and a tyrant, he chastised and destroyed them, among Greeks and barbarians alike; but wherever he found a kingdom and a king, he would give honour and protection.”
This, she maintained, was what made him Deliverer of the earth and of the human race, not the fact that he defended them from the savage beasts — for how little damage could a lion or a wild bear inflict? — nay, it was the fact that he chastised savage and wicked men, and crushed and destroyed the power of overweening tyrants. And even to this day Heracles continues this work and you have in him a helper and protector of your government as long as it is vouchsafed you to reign.
THE SECOND DISCOURSE ON KINGSHIP
The second Discourse on Kingship is put dramatically in the form of a dialogue between Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander, and in it the son is Dio’s mouthpiece, in marked contrast to the situation in the fourth Discourse, where Diogenes — and therefore Dio — is opposed to Alexander. We are shown here the way in which the true king acts in the practical affairs of life, and the Stoic ideal, drawn largely from Homer, is set forth. Toward the end the true king is contrasted with the tyrant.
Although this Discourse is addressed to no one, von Arnim is led to conjecture from its martial tone that it was delivered before Trajan in A.D. 104 on the eve of the Second Dacian War.
The Second Discourse on Kingship
It is said that Alexander, while still a lad, was once conversing with Philip his father about Homer in a very manly and lofty strain, their conversation being in effect a discussion of kingship as well. For Alexander was already to be found with his father on his campaigns, although Philip tried to discourage him in this. Alexander, however, could not hold himself in, for it was with the lad as with young dogs of fine breed that cannot brook being left behind when their masters go hunting, but follow along, often breaking their tethers to do so. [2] It is true that sometimes, because of their youth and enthusiasm, they spoil the sport by barking and starting the game too soon, but sometimes too they bring down the game themselves by bounding ahead. This, in fact, happened to Alexander at the very beginning, so that they say he brought about the battle and victory of Chaeronea when his father shrank from taking the risk.
Now it was on this occasion, when they were at Dium in Pieria on their way home from the campaign and were sacrificing to the Muses and celebrating the Olympic festival, which is said to be an ancient institution in that country, [3] that Philip in the course of their conversation put this question to Alexander: “Why, my son, have you become so infatuated with Homer that you devote yourself to him alone of all the poets? You really ought not to neglect the others, for the men are wise.” And Alexander replied: “My reason, father, is that not all poetry, any more than every style of dress, is appropriate to a king, as it seems to me. [4] Now consider the poems of other men; some I consider to be suitable indeed for the banquet, or for love, or for the eulogy of victorious athletes or horses, or as dirges for the dead, and some as designed to excite laughter or ridicule, like the works of the comic writers and those of the Parian p
oet. [5] And perhaps some of them might be called popular also, in that they give advice and admonition to the masses and to private citizens, as, for instance, the works of Phocylides and Theognis do. What is there in them by which a man could profit, who, like you or me,
‘aspires to be
The master, over all to domineer.’
[6] The poetry of Homer, however, I look upon as alone truly noble and lofty and suited to a king, worthy of the attention of a real man, particularly if he expects to rule over all the peoples of the earth — or at any rate over most of them, and those the most prominent — if he is to be, in the strict sense of the term, what Homer calls a ‘shepherd of the people.’ Or would it not be absurd for a king to refuse to use any horse but the best and yet, when it is a question of poets, to read the poorer ones as though he had nothing else to do? [7] On my word, father, I not only cannot endure to hear any other poet recited but Homer, but even object to any other metre than Homer’s heroic hexameter.”
Then Philip admired his son greatly for his noble spirit, since it was plain that he harboured no unworthy or ignoble ideas but made the heroes and demigods his examples. [8] Nevertheless, in his desire to arouse him, he said, “But take Hesiod, Alexander; do you judge him of little account as a poet?” “Nay, not I,” he replied, “but of every account, though not for kings and generals, I suppose.” “Well, then, for whom?” And Alexander answered with a smile: “For shepherds, carpenters, and farmers; since he says that shepherds are beloved by the Muses, and to carpenters he gives very shrewd advice as to how large they should cut an axle, and to farmers, when to broach a cask.” [9] “Well,” said Philip, “and is not such advice useful to men?” “Not to you and me, father,” he replied, “nor to the Macedonians of the present day, though to those of former times it was useful, when they lived a slave’s life, herding and farming for Illyrians and Triballians.” “But do you not like these magnificent lines of Hesiod about seed-time and harvest?” said Philip:
“Mark well the time when the Pleiads, daughters of Atlas, are rising;
Then begin with the harvest, but do not plough till their setting.”
[10] “I much prefer what Homer says on farm-life,” said Alexander. “And where,” Philip asked, “has Homer anything to say about farming? Or do you refer to the representations on the shield of men ploughing and gathering the grain and the grapes?” “Not at all,” said Alexander, “but rather to these well-known lines:
‘As when two lines of reapers, face to face,
In some rich landlord’s field of barley or wheat
Move on, and fast the severed handfuls fall,
So, springing on each other, they of Troy
And they of Argos smote each other down,
And neither thought of ignominious flight.’
[11] “And yet, in spite of such lines as these,” said Philip, “Homer was defeated by Hesiod in the contest. Or have you not heard of the inscription which is inscribed upon the tripod that stands on Mount Helicon?
‘Hesiod offered this gift to the Muses on Helicon’s mountain
When at Chalcis in song he had vanquished Homer, the godlike.’”
[12] “And he richly deserved to be defeated,” rejoined Alexander, “for he was not exhibiting his skill before kings, but before farmers and plain folk, or, rather, before men who were lovers of pleasure and effeminate. And that is why Homer used his poetry to avenge himself upon the Euboeans.” “How so?” asked Philip in wonder. “He singled them out among all the Greeks for a most unseemly haircut, for he makes them wear their hair in long locks flowing down their backs, as the poets of to-day do in describing effeminate boys.”
[13] Philip laughed and said, “You observe, Alexander, that one must not offend good poets or clever writers, since they have the power to say anything they wish about us.” “Not absolute power,” said he; “it was a sorry day for Stesichorus, at any rate, when he told the lies about Helen. As for Hesiod, it seems to me that he himself, father, was not unaware of how much inferior his powers were to Homer’s.” [14] “How is that?” “Because, while Homer wrote of heroes, he composed a Catalogue of Fair Women, and in reality made the women’s quarters the subject of his song, yielding to Homer the eulogy of men.”
Philip next asked him: “But as for you, Alexander, would you like to have been Agamemnon or Achilles or any one of the heroes of those days, or Homer?” [15] “No, indeed, said Alexander, “but I should like to go far beyond Achilles and the others. For you are not inferior to Peleus, in my opinion; nor is Macedonia less powerful than Phthia; nor would I admit that Olympus is a less famous mountain than Pelion; and, besides, the education I have gained under Aristotle is not inferior to that which Achilles derived from Amyntor’s son, Phoenix, an exiled man and estranged from his father. Then, too, Achilles had to take orders from others and was sent with a small force of which he was not in sole command, since he was to share the expedition with another. I, however, could never submit to any mortal whatsoever being king over me.” [16] Whereupon Philip almost became angry with him and said: “But I am king and you are subject to me, Alexander.” “Not I,” said he, “for I hearken to you, not as king, but as father.” “I suppose you will not go on and say, will you, that your mother was a goddess, as Achilles did,” said Philip, “or do you presume to compare Olympias with Thetis?” At this Alexander smiled slightly and said, “To me, father, she seems more courageous than any Nereid.” [17] Whereupon Philip laughed and said, “Not merely more courageous, my son, but also more warlike; at least she never ceases making war on me.” So far did they both go in mingling jest with earnest.
Philip then went on with his questioning: “If, then, you are so enthusiastic an admirer of Homer, how is it that you do not aspire to his poetic skill?” “Because,” he replied, “while it would give me the greatest delight to hear the herald at Olympia proclaim the victors with strong and clear voice, yet I should not myself care to herald the victories of others; I should much rather hear my own proclaimed.” [18] With these words he tried to make it clear that while he considered Homer to be a marvellous and truly divine herald of valour, yet he regarded himself and the Homeric heroes as the athletes who strove in the contest of noble achievement. “Still, it would not be at all strange, father,” he continued, “if I were to be a good poet as well, did nature but favour me; for you know that a king might find that even rhetoric was valuable to him. You, for example, are often compelled to write and speak in opposition to Demosthenes, a very clever orator who can sway his audience — to say nothing of the other political leaders of Athens.” [19] “Yes,” said Philip playfully, “and I should have been glad to cede Amphipolis to the Athenians in exchange for that clever Demosthenes. But what do you think was Homer’s attitude regarding rhetoric?” “I believe that he admired the study, father,” said he, “else he would never have introduced Phoenix as a teacher of Achilles in the art of discourse. Phoenix, at any rate, says that he was sent by Achilles’ father,
‘To teach thee both, that so thou mightst become
In words an orator, in warlike deeds
A doer.’
[20] And as for the other chieftains, he depicted the best and the best qualified for kingly office as having cultivated this art with no less zeal: I mean Diomede, Odysseus, and particularly Nestor, who surpassed all the others in both discernment and persuasiveness. Witness what he says in the early part of his poem:
‘whose tongue
Dropped words more sweet than honey.’
[21] It was for this reason that Agamemnon prayed that he might have ten such elders as counsellors rather than youths like Ajax and Achilles, implying that the capture of Troy would thus be hastened. And, indeed, in another instance he showed the importance of rhetorical skill. [22] For when the Greeks had at last become faint-hearted in pursuing the campaign because the war had lasted so long and the siege was so difficult, and also, no doubt, because of the plague that laid hold of them and of the dissensions between the k
ings, Agamemnon and Achilles; and when, in addition, a certain agitator rose to oppose them and threw the assembly into confusion — at this crisis the host rushed to the ships, embarked in hot haste, and were minded to flee. Nobody was able to restrain them, and even Agamemnon knew not how to handle the situation. [23] Now in this emergency the only one who was able to call them back and change their purpose was Odysseus, who finally, by the speech he made, and with the help of Nestor, persuaded them to remain. Consequently, this achievement was clearly due to the orators; and one could point to many other instances as well. [24] It is evident, then, that not only Homer but Hesiod, too, held this view, implying that rhetoric in the true meaning of the term, as well as philosophy, is a proper study for the king; for the latter says of Calliope,
‘She attendeth on kings august that the daughters of great Zeus
Honour and watch at their birth, those kings that of Zeus are nurtured.’
[25] But to write epic poetry, or to compose pieces in prose like those letters of yours, father, which are said to have won you high repute, is not altogether essential for a king, except indeed when he is young and has leisure, as was the case with you when, as they say, you diligently cultivated rhetorical studies in Thebes. [26] Nor, again, is it necessary that he study philosophy to the point of perfecting himself in it; he need only live simply and without affectation, to give proof by his very conduct of a character that is humane, gentle, just, lofty, and brave as well, and, above all, one that takes delight in bestowing benefits — a trait which approaches most nearly to the nature divine. He should, indeed, lend a willing ear to the teachings of philosophy whenever opportunity offers, inasmuch as these are manifestly not opposed to his own character but in accord with it; [27] yet I should especially counsel the noble ruler of princely soul to make poetry his delight and to read it attentively — not all poetry, however, but only the most beautiful and majestic, such as we know Homer’s alone to be, and of Hesiod’s the portions akin to Homer’s, and perhaps sundry edifying passages in other poets.”
Delphi Complete Works of Dio Chrysostom Page 3