Delphi Complete Works of Dio Chrysostom

by Dio Chrysostom

  [15] Now Alexander was at once delighted with the man’s boldness and composure in not being awestruck in his presence. For it is somehow natural for the courageous to love the courageous, while cowards eye them with misgiving and hate them as enemies, but welcome the base and like them. And so to the one class truth and frankness are the most agreeable things in the world, to the other, flattery and deceit. The latter lend a willing ear to those who in their intercourse seek to please, the former, to those who have regard for the truth.

  [16] ὁ οὖν Διογένης ὀλίγον ἐπισχὼν ἤρετο αὐτὸν ὅστις εἴη καὶ τί βουλόμενος ἥκοι πρὸς αὐτόν,ἤ, ἔφη, τῶν ἐμῶν τι ληψόμενος; ἦ γάρ, ἔφη, χρήματα ἔστι σοι καὶ ἔχεις ὅτου ἂν μεταδοίης; πολλά γε, εἶπε, καὶ πολλοῦ ἄξια, ὧν σὺ οὐκ οἶδα εἴ ποτε δυνήσῃ μεταλαβεῖν. οὐ μέντοι ῾ἄορας οὐδὲ λέβητασ᾽ οὐδὲ κρατῆρας οὐδὲ κλίνας καὶ τραπέζας τυγχάνω κεκτημένος,

  [16] Then after a brief pause Diogenes asked the king who he was and what object he had in coming to him. “Was it,” he said, “to take some of my property?” “Why, have you any property?” replied the other; “do you own anything that you might share with one?” “Much indeed,” he replied, “and very valuable, in which I do not at all feel sure that you will ever be able to have a share. Yet it is not glaives or cauldrons or mixing-bowls or couches and tables such as Darius is reported by some writers to possess in Persia that I happen to own.”

  [17] ὥς τινές φασι κεκτῆσθαι Δαρεῖον ἐν Πέρσαις. τί δέ, ἔφη,[p. 59] οὐκ οἶσθα Ἀλέξανδρον τὸν βασιλέα; τό γε ὄνομα, εἶπεν, ἀκούω πολλῶν λεγόντων, ὡς κολοιῶν περιπετομένων, αὐτὸν δὲ οὐ γιγνώσκω:

  [17] “What,” retorted the other, “do you not know Alexander the king?” “I hear many speak his name, to be sure,” said he, “like so many jackdaws flitting about, but the man I know not, for I am not acquainted with his mind.” “But now,” came the answer, “you shall know his mind also, since I have come for the very purpose of letting you know me thoroughly and of seeing you.”

  [18] οὐ γάρ εἰμι ἔμπειρος αὐτοῦ τῆς διανοίας. ἀλλὰ νῦν, ἔφη, γνώσῃ καὶ τὴν διάνοιαν: ἥκω γὰρ ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο, ἐμαυτόν τε παρέξων σοι καταμαθεῖν καὶ σὲ ὀψόμενος. ἀλλὰ χαλεπῶς, ἔφη, με ἂν ἴδοις, ὥσπερ τὸ φῶς οἱ τὰ ὄμματα ἀσθενεῖς. τόδε δέ μοι εἰπέ, σὺ ἐκεῖνος εἶ Ἀλέξανδρος, ὃν λέγουσιν ὑποβολιμαῖον; καὶ ὃς ἀκούσας ἠρυθρίασε μὲν καὶ ὠργίσθη, κατέσχε δ᾽ ἑαυτόν: μετενόει δέ, ὅτι εἰς λόγους ἠξίωσεν ἐλθεῖν ἀνδρὶ σκαιῷ τε καὶ ἀλαζόνι, ὡς αὐτὸς ἐνόμιζεν.

  [18] “Well, it would be hard for you to see me,” rejoined the other, “just as it is for men with weak eyes to see the light. But tell me this: are you the Alexander whom they call a bastard?” At this the king flushed and showed anger, but he controlled himself and regretted that he had deigned to enter into conversation with a man who was both rude and an impostor,º as he thought.

  [19] ὁ οὖν Διογένης καταμαθὼν αὐτὸν τεταραγμένον, ἐβουλήθη μεταβαλεῖν αὐτοῦ τὴν ψυχήν, ὥσπερ οἱ παῖδες τοὺς ἀστραγάλους. εἰπόντος δὲ αὐτοῦ, Πόθεν δέ σοι ἐπῆλθεν ἡμᾶς ὑποβολιμαίους εἰπεῖν; ὁπόθεν, ἔφη, καὶ τὴν μητέρα σου ἀκούω ταῦτα περὶ σοῦ λέγειν. ἢ οὐκ Ὀλυμπιάς ἐστιν ἡ εἰποῦσα ὅτι οὐκ ἐκ Φιλίππου τυγχάνεις γεγονώς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ δράκοντος ἢ Ἄμμωνος ἢ οὐκ οἶδα ὅτου ποτὲ θεῶν ἢ ἀνθρώπων ἢ θηρίων; καίτοι οὕτως ὑποβολιμαῖος ἂν εἴης. 54 ἢ σὺ τοὺς ἀλεκτρυόνας οὐ καλεῖς νόθους, οἳ ἂν ὦσιν ἐξ ἀνομοίων; ἢ οὐ μείζων σοι δοκεῖ διαφορὰ θεοῦ πρὸς γυναῖκα θνητὴν ἢ γενναίου ἀλεκτρυόνος; εἰ οὖν γέγονας οὕτως καθάπερ φασί, καὶ σὺ νόθος ἂν εἴης ὥσπερ ἀλεκτρυών. τυχὸν δὲ καὶ μαχιμώτατος ἔσῃ τῶν ἄλλων διὰ ταύτην τὴν νοθείαν.

  [19] Diogenes, however, marking his embarrassment, would fain change his throw just like men playing at dice. So when the king said, “What gave you the idea of calling me a bastard?” he replied, “What gave it? Why, I hear that your own mother says this of you. Or is it not Olympias who said that Philip is not your father, as it happens, but a dragon or Ammon or some god or other or demigod or wild animal? And yet in that case you would certainly be a bastard.”

  [20] ἐνταῦθα ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος ἐμειδίασεν, καὶ ἥσθη ὡς οὐδέποτε, καὶ ἔδοξεν αὐτῷ ὁ Διογένης οὐ μόνον οὐ σκαιός, ἀλλὰ καὶ δεξιώτατος ἁπάντων καὶ μόνος εἰδὼς χαρίζεσθαι. τί οὖν, ἔφη, πότερον ἀληθὴς ἢ ψευδὴς εἶναι δοκεῖ σοι ὁ λόγος; ἄδηλον, ἔφη, ἐστίν:

  [20] Thereupon Alexander smiled and was pleased as never before, thinking that Diogenes, so far from being rude, was the most tactful of men and the only one who really knew how to pay a compliment. “Well then,” said he, “do you think the story is true or false?”

  [21] ἐὰν μὲν γὰρ ᾖς σώφρων καὶ ἀνδρεῖος καὶ τὴν τοῦ Διὸς ἐπιστάμενος τέχνην τὴν βασιλικήν, οὐθέν σε κωλύει τοῦ Διὸς εἶναι υἱόν:

  [21] “It is uncertain,” was the reply; “for if you are self-controlled and know the royal art of Zeus, nothing prevents your being a son of Zeus;

  [22] ἐπεὶ τοῦτό γε καὶ Ὅμηρόν φασι λέγειν, ὅτι πατήρ ἐστιν ὁ [p. 60] Ζεύς, ὥσπερ τῶν θεῶν, καὶ τῶν ἀνδρῶν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τῶν ἀνδραπόδων οὐδὲ τῶν φαύλων τε καὶ ἀγεννῶν οὐδενός: ἐὰν δὲ δειλὸς ᾖς καὶ τρυφερὸς καὶ ἀνελεύθερος, οὔτε σοι θεῶν οὔτε ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἀγαθῶν προσήκει.

  [22] for this is what they claim Homer says: that Zeus is the father, not only of gods but of men as well, though not of slaves nor of any mean and ignoble man. If, however, you are cowardly and love luxury and have a servile nature, then you are in no way related to the gods or to good men.

  [23] ἀλλὰ τοῖς μὲν ἐν Θήβαις Σπαρτοῖς ποτε λεγομένοις σημεῖον λέγεται εἶναι τοῦ γένους λόγχη τις οἶμαι ἐπὶ τοῦσώματος: ὅστις δὲ τοῦτο τὸ σημεῖον μὴ ἔχοι, οὐ δοκεῖν τῶν Σπαρτῶν εἶναι: τοῖς δὲ τοῦ Διὸς ἐκγόνοις οὐκ οἴει σημεῖον ἐνεῖναι τῇ ψυχῇ, ἐξ οὗ φανεροὶ ἔσονται τοῖς δυναμένοις γνωρίζειν εἴτε ἐξ ἐκείνου γεγονότες εἰσὶν εἴτε μή; πάνυ οὖν ἥσθη τούτῳ τῷ λόγῳ ὁ

  [23] Why, methinks of old the ‘Sown men,’ as they were called, of Thebes had what seemed a spear mark on their bodies as a sign of their origin, and he who did not have this mark was not regarded as one of the ‘Sown men.’ And do you not think that in the souls of the offspring of Zeus also a sign is to be found by which those who have the power to judge will know whe
ther they are of his seed or not?” Of course Alexander was greatly delighted with this thought.

  [24] Ἀλέξανδρος. μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο ἤρετο αὐτόν, Πῶς ἄν, ἔφη, κάλλισταβασιλεύοι τις; καὶ ὃς δεινὸν ὑποβλέψας, Ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἔστιν, ἔφη, βασιλεύειν κακῶς οὐ μᾶλλον ἢ κακῶς ἀγαθὸν εἶναι. ὁ γὰρ βασιλεὺς ἀνθρώπων ἄριστός ἐστιν, ἀνδρειότατος ὢν καὶ δικαιότατος καὶ φιλανθρωπότατος καὶ ἀνίκητος ὑπὸ παντὸς πόνου καὶ πάσης ἐπιθυμίας.

  [24] Hereupon he put the following question to Diogenes. “How,” said he, “could one be the best king?” At this the other, eyeing him sternly, answered, “But no one can be a bad king any more than he can be a bad good man; for the king is the best one among men, since he is most brave and righteous and humane, and cannot be overcome by any toil or by any appetite.

  [25] ἢ σὺ οἴει τὸν ἀδύνατον ἡνιοχεῖν ἡνίοχον εἶναι τοῦτον; ἢ τὸν ἄπειρον τοῦ κυβερνᾶν κυβερνήτην, ἢ τὸν οὐκ ἐπιστάμενον ἰᾶσθαι ἰατρόν; οὐκ ἔστιν. καθάπερ οὖν οὐκ ἔστι κυβερνᾶν μὴ κυβερνητικῶς, οὕτως οὐδὲ βασιλεύειν μὴ βασιλικῶς, οὐδ᾽ ἂν πάντες φῶσιν Ἕλληνες καὶ βάρβαροι καὶ πολλὰ διαδήματα καὶ σκῆπτρα καὶ τιάρας προσάψωσιν αὐτῷ, καθάπερ τὰ περιδέραια τοῖς ἐκτιθεμένοις

  [25] Or do you think a man is a charioteer if he cannot drive, or that one is a pilot if he is ignorant of steering, or is a physician if he knows not how to cure? It is impossible, nay, though all the Greeks and barbarians acclaim him as such and load him with many diadems and sceptres and tiaras like so many necklaces that are put on castaway children lest they fail of recognition. Therefore, just as one cannot pilot except after the manner of pilots, so no one can be a king except in a kingly way.”

  [26] παιδίοις, ἵνα μὴ ἀγνοῆται. καὶ ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος φοβηθεὶς μὴ ἄρα ἄπειρος ἀναφανῇ τῆς βασιλικῆς ἐπιστήμης, Καὶ τίς, ἔφη,

  [26] Then Alexander in alarm, lest after all he might be found ignorant of the science of kingship, said, “And who, think you, imparts this art, or where must one go to learn it?”

  [27] σοι δοκεῖ τὴν τέχνην ταύτην παραδιδόναι; ἢ ποῖ δεῖ πορευθέντα μαθεῖν; ὁ οὖν Διογένης εἶπεν, Ἀλλ᾽ ἐπίστασαι αὐτήν, εἴπερ ἀληθὴς ὁ τῆς Ὀλυμπιάδος λόγος καὶ γέγονας ἐκ τοῦ Διός: ἐκεῖνοσγάρ ἐστιν ὁ τὴν ἐπιστήμην ταύτην πρῶτος καὶ μάλιστα ἔχων καὶ οἷς ἐθέλει μεταδιδούς: οἷς δὲ ἂν μεταδῷ, πάντες οὗτοι Διὸς παῖδές εἰσί τε καὶ λέγονται.

  [27] To which Diogenes replied, “Well, you know it if the words of Olympias are true and you are a son of Zeus, for it is he who first and chiefly possesses this knowledge and imparts it to whom he will; and all they to whom he imparts it are sons of Zeus and are so called.

  [28] ἢ σὺ οἴει τοὺς σοφιστὰς εἶναι τοὺς διδάσκοντας βασιλεύειν; ἀλλ᾽ ἐκείνων μὲν οἱ πολλοὶ οὐχ ὅπως βασιλεύειν,

  [28] Or do you think that it is the sophists who teach kingship? Nay, the most of them do not even know how to live, to say nothing of how to be king.

  [29] ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ζῆν ἴσασιν. οὐκ οἶσθα, ἔφη, ὅτι διττή ἐστιν ἡ[p. 61] παιδεία, ἡ μέν τις δαιμόνιος, ἡ δὲ ἀνθρωπίνη; ἡ μὲν οὖν θεία μεγάλη καὶ ἰσχυρὰ καὶ ῥᾳδία, ἡ δὲ ἀνθρωπίνη μικρὰ καὶ ἀσθενὴς καὶ πολλοὺς ἔχουσα κινδύνους καὶ ἀπάτην οὐκ ὀλίγην: ὅμως δὲ ἀναγκαία προσγενέσθαι ἐκείνῃ, εἰ ὀρθῶς γίγνοιτο.

  [29] Do you not know,” he continued, “that education is of two kinds, the one from heaven, as it were, the other human? Now the divine is great and strong and easy, while the human is small and weak and full of pitfalls and no little deception; and yet it must be added to the other if everything is to be right.

  [30] καλοῦσι δὲ οἱ πολλοὶ ταύτην μὲν παιδείαν, καθάπερ οἶμαι παιδιάν, καὶ νομίζουσι τὸν πλεῖστα γράμματα εἰδότα, Περσικά τε καὶ Ἑλληνικὰ καὶ τὰ Σύρων καὶ τὰ Φοινίκων, καὶ πλείστοις ἐντυγχάνοντα βιβλίοις, τοῦτον σοφώτατον καὶ μάλιστα πεπαιδευμένον: πάλιν δὲ ὅταν ἐντύχωσι τῶν τοιούτων τισὶ μοχθηροῖς καὶ δειλοῖς καὶ φιλαργύροις, ὀλίγου ἄξιόν φασι τὸ πρᾶγμα καὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον: τὴν δὲ ἑτέραν ἐνίοτε μὲν παιδείαν, ἐνίοτε δὲ ἀνδρείαν καὶ μεγαλοφροσύνην.

  [30] This human sort, however, is what most people call ‘education’ — meaning thereby something for children, I suppose — and they have the notion that he who knows the most literature, Persian or Greek or Syrian or Phoenician, and has read the most books is the wisest and best educated person; but again, when people find any knaves or cowards or avaricious men among these, then they say the fact is as insignificant as the individual. The other kind men sometimes call simply education, at other times, ‘true manhood’ and ‘high-mindedness.’

  [31] καὶ οὕτω δὴ Διὸς παῖδας ἐκάλουν οἱ πρότερον τοὺς τῆς ἀγαθῆς παιδείας ἐπιτυγχάνοντας καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς ἀνδρείους, πεπαιδευμένους ὡς Ἡρακλέα ἐκεῖνον. οὐκοῦν ὅστις ἂν ἐκείνην τὴν παιδείαν ἔχῃ καλῶς πεφυκώς, ῥᾳδίως καὶ ταύτης γίγνεται μέτοχος, ὀλίγα ἀκούσας καὶ ὀλιγάκις, αὐτὰ τὰ μέγιστα καὶ κυριώτατα, καὶ μεμύηται καὶ φυλάττει ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ.

  [31] And it was for that reason that men of old called those persons ‘sons of Zeus’ who received the good education and were manly of soul, having been educated after the pattern of the great Heracles. Whoever, then, being noble by nature, possesses that higher education, readily acquires this other also, having only to learn a few things in a few lessons, merely the greatest and most important things, and is already initiated and treasures them in his soul.

  [32] καὶ οὐδεὶς ἂν αὐτόν τι τούτων ἀφέλοιτο οὔτε καιρὸς οὔτε ἄνθρωπος σοφιστής, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἂν πυρί τις ἐκκαῦσαι βουλόμενος: ἀλλὰ κἂν ἐμπρήσῃ τις τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ὥσπερ τὸν Ἡρακλέα φασὶν αὑτὸν ἐμπρῆσαι, μένοι ἂν αὐτοῦ τὰ δόγματα ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ, καθάπερ οἶμαι τῶν κατακαιομένων νεκρῶν τοὺς ὀδόντας φασὶ διαμένειν, τοῦ ἄλλου σώματος δαπανηθέντος ὑπὸ τοῦ πυρός.

  [32] And thenceforth nothing can rob him of any of these things, neither time nor any tricky sophist, nay, not even one who would fain burn them out by fire. But if the man were burned, as Heracles is said to have burned himself, yet his principles would abide in his soul just as, I believe, the teeth of bodies that have been cremated are said to remain undestroyed though the rest of the body has been consumed by the fire.

  [33] οὐ γὰρ μαθεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπομνησ�
�ῆναι δεῖται μόνον: ἔπειτα εὐθὺς οἶδέν τε καὶ ἐγνώρισεν, ὡς ἂν ἐξ ἀρχῆς τὰ δόγματα ἔχων ταῦτα ἐν τῇ αὑτοῦ διανοίᾳ. προσέτι δέ, ἐὰν μὲν ἀνδρὶ περιπέσῃ ὥσπερ ὁδὸν ἐπισταμένῳ, ῥᾳδίως ἐκεῖνος ἐπέδειξεν αὐτῷ, καὶ μαθὼν εὐθὺς ἄπεισιν: ἐὰν δὲ ἀγνοοῦντι καὶ ἀλαζόνι σοφιστῇ, κατατρίψει περιάγων [p. 62] αὐτόν, ὁτὲ μὲν πρὸς ἀνατολάς, ὁτὲ δὲ πρὸς δύσιν, ὁτὲ δὲ πρὸς μεσημβρίαν ἕλκων, οὐδὲν αὐτὸς εἰδώς, ἀλλὰ εἰκάζων, καὶ πολὺ πρότερον αὐτὸς ὑπὸ τοιούτων ἀλαζόνων πεπλανημένος.

  [33] For he does not have to learn but merely to recall; after that he at once knows and recognizes, as having had these principles in his mind at the beginning. And furthermore, if he comes upon a man who knows the road, so to speak, this man easily directs him, and on getting the information he at once goes his way. If, however, he falls in with some ignorant and charlatan sophist, the fellow will wear him out by leading him hither and thither, dragging him now to the east and now to the west and now to the south, not knowing anything himself but merely guessing, after having been led far afield himself long before by impostors like himself.

  [34] ὥσπερ γὰρ αἱ ἀμαθεῖς καὶ ἀκόλαστοι κύνες ἐν τῇ θήρᾳ μηδὲν ξυνεῖσαι μηδὲ γνωρίσασαι τὸ ἴχνος ἐξαπατῶσιν ἄλλας τῇ φωνῇ καὶ τῷ σχήματι, ὡσεἰδυῖαί τε καὶ ὁρῶσαι, καὶ πολλαὶ συνέπονται ταύταις, αἱ ἀφρονέσταται σχεδὸν ταῖς μάτην φθεγγομέναις,