[9] At greed, the worst of deities, my son,
Why graspest thou? Do not; she is Queen of wrong.
Houses many and happy cities enters she,
Nor leaves till ruined are her votaries.
Thou art mad for her!— ’tis best to venerate
Equality, which knitteth friends to friends,
Cities to cities, allies to allies.
Nature gave men the law of equal rights,
And the less, ever marshalled against
The greater, ushers in the dawn of hate.
[10] I have quoted the iambics in full; for when a thought has been admirably expressed, it marks the man of good sense to use it in that form.
In this passage, then, are enumerated all the consequences of greed: that it is of advantage neither to the individual nor to the state; but that, on the contrary, it overthrows and destroys the prosperity of families and of states as well; and, in the second place, that the law of men requires us to honour equality, and that this establishes a common bond of friendship and peace for all toward one another, whereas quarrels, internal strife, and foreign wars are due to nothing else than the desire for more, with the result that each side is deprived even of a sufficiency. [11] For what is more necessary than life, or what do all men hold as of more importance than this? But nevertheless men will destroy even that for money, and some too have caused even their own fatherlands to be laid waste. The same poet then goes on to say that there is no greed among the divine beings, wherefore they remain indestructible and ageless, each single one keeping its own proper position night and day and through all the seasons. For, the poet adds, if they were not so ordered, none of them would be able to survive. When, therefore, greed would bring destruction even to the divine beings, what disastrous effect must we believe this malady causes to human kind? And he aptly mentions measures and weights as having been invented to secure justice and to prevent any man from over-reaching another.
[12] And Hesiod says that the half is even more than the whole, having in mind, I presume, the injuries and losses resulting from greed. For what king or potentate or people has ever attempted to transgress the principle of justice and grasp at the greater share but he has lost all his former felicity and has suffered great and overpowering disasters, bequeathing to all men thereafter unmistakable examples of folly and wickedness? Or of those who were willing to receive the lesser share and to endure cheerfully the seeming defeat, what man has not gained more than the others many times over, things that accrued to him automatically and without effort on his part, and has gained for the longest time fair prosperity and in the greatest security has enjoyed Fortune’s blessings?
[13] Illustrations are at hand: Did not the sons of Iocasta, when they became at variance in their desire for more, the one wishing to be sole ruler, and the other seeking by fair means or foul to secure his portion of the kingdom — did they not, though brothers, slay each the other and bring the greatest evils, both of them, upon those who espoused their causes, since the invaders of the land straightway perished, while those who fought to defend it were worsted soon after because they would not allow the corpses to be buried? [14] And again, on account of the greed of one man who carried off Helen and the possessions of Menelaus, the inhabitants of Asia’s greatest city perished along with their children and wives, for harbouring one woman and a little property they paid so huge a penalty. Then take the case of Xerxes, the master of the other continent. When he cast covetous eyes upon Greece too, and collected and brought against her so mighty a fleet and so many myriads, he shamefully lost all his armament and with difficulty saved his own person by taking to flight himself; and afterwards he was forced to endure the ravishing of his country and of his cities on the seacoast. [15] As a further illustration take Polycrates: They say that so long as he was ruler of Samos alone he enjoyed the greatest felicity of any man in the whole world; but that when he wished to meddle somewhat in the affairs of the people of the opposite mainland and sailed across for the purpose of getting money from Orestes, he met with no easy death, but was impaled by that barbarian prince and thus perished.
These instances, in order that they be warning examples to you, I have taken not only from exceedingly ancient, but also from subsequent times, and as related both in poetry and in narrative prose. [16] Then it is worth your while to call to mind the attitude of the god likewise, that he also by his very nature punishes the covetous. When, for instance, the Spartans consulted his oracle to ask if he gave Arcadia to them, he not only refused them, but rebuked their insatiable greed in the following words:
Arcadia thou askest of me? ’Tis much! Nay, give it I’ll not,
but also imposed a penalty upon them and foretold the future, yet in such a way that they did not understand, but marched against Tegea to meet with disasters known of all men. And yet, while plainly denying Arcadia to them, he would not give them Tegea either. For this was the strongest and most important place in Arcadia. But, speaking generally, the majority of mankind are so covetous that they have not even ears to hear, nor do they so much as understand words of warning when spoken.
[17] At another time, when the Athenians asked about the island of Sicily, the oracle answered that they should annex to their city ‘Sicily,’ this being the name of a hill near the city. But they paid no attention to what was near at hand and before their eyes; so bereft of sense were they on account of their lust for more, that they imagined the god was telling them to enclose without one wall Athens and an island some ten thousand stades distant. As a result they sailed thither, and not only failed to get Sicily, but lost Attica as well, and saw their city itself in the hands of her enemies.
[18] And if you should wish to enumerate all such examples as these, it is clear that not even in a year’s time would you run out of them. Then consider, I beg of you, that most men regard physical strength as one of the blessings of life; yet I believe that in the case of those who have the greatest physical strength and greatly excel in bodily vigour, it is of advantage to sacrifice a part of this; for in my opinion what exceeds the right proportion is very troublesome. In the same manner wealth which may be put to use does not, if it be moderate, injure its possessor, but makes his life easier and certainly frees it from want; but if it becomes excessive, it causes far more worries and troubles than that which passes for pleasure; and many have rued the day when they acquired enormous wealth, while some for this very reason have come to lack even the barest necessities.
[19] So far so good! But let us take our own selves: If each element that makes up our being should wish to have the advantage, would it be possible for us to keep alive for the shortest time? I mean, for example, if the blood should increase a little beyond the proper proportion, or even if something or other in us should increase the pressure of the warm breath beyond its due and proper proportion, do you not know that serious and dangerous illnesses inevitably come on? And in the harmonies of these instruments of our bodies, if any one of the strings should get more than its share of tension, in Heaven’s name must not the harmony as a whole be destroyed?
[20] As for me, I wonder greatly how we should have acted if we had not received the shortest span of life from the gods! However, just as if we were making our plans for an endless life, we strive earnestly each to have more than his neighbour. Just as any man, then, who knowing that he has a voyage of only two or three days’ duration at the most before him, should nevertheless put enough provisions on board to last a year, will be regarded as a fool; in the same way, any man who, being fully aware that he could not live more than the allotted span of seventy years, should provide himself with substance to last him a thousand years would he not be equally and in the same way insane? Indeed there are some who lay in stores so great that, if they were out at sea, their ship would founder at once. And I swear it does happen to countless numbers.
[21] So much for that. Well then, if a man has invited ten or fifteen guests to a banquet and although needing to satisfy o
nly so many, should then go on and make ready food enough for five hundred or a thousand, will he not be thought to be quite out of his mind? In like manner we also, although we know that the needs of the body are easy enough to count — for clothing, I suppose, and shelter and nourishment we do need — nevertheless strain ourselves to the utmost as if we were gathering supplies for an army and, I swear, there is good reason for our doing so; for the great majority are feeding in their hearts a whole army of desires. As for clothing, nobody wants to have it too large for his body, knowing that it would be inconvenient to wear; but property altogether too large for their needs all men crave, net understanding that this is more objectionable than the other.
[22] I think, too, that Croesus the Lydian, when he wanted to expose the insatiable greed of men, did this admirably. He conducted a group of men into his treasure-house and permitted them to take away just as much gold as each man could carry on his person. For we see that most of them not only filled the bosoms of their clothing, but carried away some of the dust upon their heads and in their mouths and that they could scarcely walk, cutting a ridiculous figure, all twisted out of shape as they were. In life also, methinks, certain men walk along in an unseemly posture and cut a ridiculous figure on account of their greed.
THE EIGHTEENTH DISCOURSE: ON TRAINING FOR PUBLIC SPEAKING
Dio Chrysostom, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Quintilian, gave select lists of authors for students to read. The fact that there are no great divergences in these lists gives the impression that there was general agreement in the ancient schools as to which were the best authors for students. Dio’s list we expect to differ in some respects from Quintilian’s because Quintilian, whose primary interest was in the Latin language, gives a select list of Latin writers as well; and in the second place, Dio was giving advice to a wealthy and influential man of mature years who wished to take some part in public life, but lacked the leisure or the inclination to work hard in order to fit himself for this, whereas Quintilian was writing for the benefit of youths whose chief interest was in the eloquence of the bar.
After complimenting this prosperous man and eulogizing oratory Dio proceeds to give his list, naming poets, historians, orators in this order; and then, without regard to the type of their literary works, he refers in general terms to the followers of Socrates. Through mentioning them last he gains a good opportunity to speak at length and in the highest terms of Xenophon, whom he so greatly admired, in this respect differing somewhat from the majority of modern critics.
In poetry it is the writers of Comedy and Tragedy that are really useful for the purpose he has in view, although the epic poet Homer is, of course, supreme. Other types of poetry his wealthy friend will not have time to read. Among the historians he gives the first place to Thucydides, and among the orators to Demosthenes, although he believes that Hypereides and Aeschines will be of more practical benefit because not so difficult to imitate. It is at first sight strange that he does not mention Isocrates at all, but probably he thought his long involved sentences not a suitable model for his correspondent. Of philosophers Dio names none at all if we except the indirect reference to Socrates, although we know from his writings that he must have been familiar with Plato; and the only reference to philosophy is where he says, apparently with approval, that Euripides had some knowledge of it. Quintilian on the other hand ends his list of Greek writers by naming as philosophers Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, and Theophrastus.
Then comes the question as to whether this man in training himself to be an orator should write or dictate to a secretary. Dio thinks it better for him to dictate and advises him especially not to write school exercises, in all this taking a position opposite to that of Quintilian.
As to when Dio wrote this letter and to whom, great diversity of opinion prevails, since we have nothing to guide us except the contents of the letter itself and our imperfect knowledge of Dio’s life and the progressive change in his views. However, since Dio represents himself as considerably younger than the man he addressed, who was at the height of his powers, it does seem reasonable to refer this letter to the period before Dio’s banishment. Even then he was probably at least forty years old. A further consideration is the fact that Dio does not recommend the reading of any philosophical works to this would-be orator, as he certainly would have done after he became a convert to philosophy.
Von Arnim, who takes στρατηγοῖς in § 16, where Dio is speaking of the advantages to be derived from a study of Xenophon’s speeches, to mean ‘provincial Governors,’ βασιλικοῖς to mean ‘imperial officials,’ and πλῆθος ‘the commons or citizen body’ of a Greek state, notes that στρατιῶται (soldiers) are not expressly mentioned, and infers from this that Dio’s correspondent has nothing to do with soldiers, but does have to deal with Roman provincial governors and imperial officials, and therefore is not a Roman himself, but a local Greek official occupying a high position in some large Greek city of Asia Minor. Von Arnim further supports this view by observing that, according to Dio, Xenophon’s speeches teach “not to trust too readily those in authority over you” — good advice for a Greek subject to Romans, and how a statesman can encourage the despondent — knowledge not needed by a Roman governor. He concludes his argument by saying that a Roman studied rhetoric solely for formal intellectual training. It might be objected, however, that Cicero and Caesar did not study it for this purpose alone.
As to why this man of high position wished such elementary instruction, and he a Greek, Dio suggests that for some especial reasons he had failed to get rhetorical training in his youth, or that he lived far removed from the centres of Greek culture. Finally, von Arnim faintly hints the Dio’s correspondent may have been Vespasian before he became emperor. Wilhelm Christ suggests that the man was Nerva before his elevation to the position of emperor, while Hammer and Lemarchand support the view that Dio’s letter was not addressed to any actual person.
The Eighteenth Discourse: On Training for Public Speaking
Although I had often praised your character as that of a good man who is worthy to be first among the best, yet I never admired it before as I do now. For that a man in the very prime of life and second to no one in influence, who possesses great wealth and has every opportunity to live in luxury by day and night, should in spite of all this reach out for education also and be eager to acquire training in eloquent speaking, and should display no hesitation even if it should cost toil, seems to me to give proof of an extraordinarily noble soul and one not only ambitious, but in very truth devoted to wisdom. And for that matter the best of the ancients said that they went on learning not only in the prime of life but also as they grew old. [2] And you, as it seems to me, are altogether wise in believing that a statesman needs experience and training in public speaking and in eloquence. For it is true that this will prove of very great help toward making him beloved and influential and esteemed instead of being looked down upon. For when men are afraid, what does more to inspire them than the spoken word? And when they wax insolent and uplifted in spirit, what more effectively brings them down and chastens them? What has greater influence in keeping them from indulging their desires? Whose admonitions do they endure more meekly than the man’s whose speech delights them? [3] Time and again, at any rate, there may be seen in our cities one group of men spending, handing out largess, adorning their city with dedications, but the orators who support these measures getting the applause, as though they and not the others had brought these things about. For this same reason the poets of the earliest times, who received their gift of poetry from the gods, never spoke of either the strong or the beautiful as being ‘looked upon as gods,’ but reserved this praise for the orators. So it is because you not only have observed all this, but are also endeavouring to put it into practice that I commend and admire you.
[4] And I acknowledge on my own behalf a gratitude beyond the ordinary because you have believed that I could be useful to you in carrying out this purp
ose and this endeavour. For up to the present, as one of the writers of old said that he was ‘a good enough prophet for his own self,’ so I too considered that I should do well enough for myself in oratory, though barely even that. But you elate me and persuade me to take courage, in the hope that I can be of use to one who not only has attained so high a degree of culture, but is also as gifted as yourself. And perhaps I could, just as a boy or some aged herdsman might, be useful to a strong and vigorous wayfarer in pointing out a shorter road or a beaten track of which he did not happen to know.
[5] But to cut my preface short, I must at once endeavour to carry out your instructions.
For a mere lad, now, or a young man who wishes to withdraw from political life and devote himself to training and to the acquisition of forensic ability, there is need of a different regimen in both tasks and activities. But you are not unacquainted with the task, nor are you able to forsake the political career, nor is it the eloquence and effectiveness of a pleader in the courts of law of which you stand in need, but rather that which is alike fitting and sufficient for a statesman. [6] So first of all, you should know that you have no need of toil or exacting labour; for although, when a man has already undergone a great deal of training, these contribute very greatly to his progress, yet if he has had only a little, they will lessen his confidence and make him diffident about getting into action; just as with athletes who are unaccustomed to the training of the body, such training weakens them if they become fatigued by exercises which are too severe. But just as bodies unaccustomed to toil need anointing and moderate exercise rather than the training of the gymnasium, so you in preparing yourself for public speaking have need of diligence which has a tempering of pleasure rather than laborious training.
Delphi Complete Works of Dio Chrysostom Page 30