Delphi Complete Works of Dio Chrysostom

by Dio Chrysostom

  [144] Later those Achaeans who had been driven out by the Dorians, not knowing in their weak condition which way to turn, made their way to Asia and to the descendants of Priam and Hector as to friends and allies, and then, with the friendly consent of these, founded Lesbos, whose inhabitants allowed them to do so through friendship, and other not inconsiderable places.

  If anyone does not accept this account under the influence of the old view, let him know that he is unable to get free of error and distinguish truth from falsehood.

  [145] ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀληθοῦς. τὸ γὰρ πιστεύεσθαι πολὺν χρόνον ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπων ἠλιθίων οὐδέν ἐστιν ἰσχυρὸν οὐδὲ ὅτι τὰ ψευδῆ ἐλέχθη παρὰ τοῖς πρότερον: ἐπεί τοι καὶ περὶ ἄλλων πολλῶν διαφέρονται καὶ τἀναντία δοξάζουσιν. οἷον εὐθὺς περὶ τοῦ Περσικοῦ πολέμου, οἱ μέν φασιν ὑστέραν γενέσθαι τὴν περὶ Σαλαμῖνα ναυμαχίαν τῆς ἐνΠλαταιαῖς μάχης, οἱ δὲ τῶν ἔργων τελευταῖον εἶναι τὸ ἐν Πλαταιαῖς:

  [145] The fact that a thing has long been accepted by foolish people is not a weighty consideration nor the fact that the falsehoods were current among those of former times. You see, in regard to many other matters also men differ and hold contrary views. In regard to the Persian War, for instance, some hold that the naval engagement off Salamis took place after the battle of Plataea, others that the affair at Plataea was the last of the events; yet a record was made immediately after the events occurred.

  [146] καίτοι γε ἐγράφη παραχρῆμα τῶν ἔργων. οὐ γὰρ ἴσασιν οἱ πολλοὶ τὸ ἀκριβές, ἀλλὰ φήμης ἀκούουσι μόνον, καὶ ταῦτα οἱ γενόμενοι κατὰ τὸν χρόνον ἐκεῖνον: οἱ δέ δεύτεροι καὶ τρίτοι τελέως ἄπειροι καὶ ὅ, τι ἄν εἴπῃ τις παραδέχονται ῥᾳδίως: ὁπότε τὸνΣκιρίτην μὲν λόχον ὀνομάζουσι Λακεδαιμονίων μηδεπώποτε γενόμενον, ὥς φησι Θουκυδίδης, Ἁρμόδιον δὲ καὶ Ἀριστογείτονα πάντων μάλιστα Ἀθηναῖοι τιμῶσιν, ὡς ἐλευθερώσαντας τὴν πόλιν καὶ ἀνελόντας τὸν τύραννον.

  [146] For most people have no accurate knowledge. They merely accept rumour, even when they are contemporary with the time in question, while the second and third generations are in total ignorance and readily swallow whatever anyone says; as, for example, when people speak of the Scirite company in the Lacedaemonian army, which, as Thucydides says, never existed, or when the Athenians give the highest honours to Harmodius and Aristogeiton, under the impression that they had freed the city and slain the tyrant.

  [147] καὶ τί δεῖ τἀνθρώπεια λέγειν, ὅπου τὸν μὲν Οὐρανὸν τολμῶσι λέγειν καὶ πείθουσιν ὡς ἐκτμηθένταὑπὸ τοῦ Κρόνου, τὸν Κρόνον δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ Διός; τοῦ γὰρ πρώτου καταλαβόντος, ὥσπερ εἴωθεν, ἄτοπον τὸ πεισθῆναί ἐστι. βούλομαι δὲ καὶ περὶ Ὁμήρου ἀπολογήσασθαι, ὡς οὐκ ἀνάξιον ὁμολογεῖν αὐτῷ ψευδομένῳ. πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ πολὺ ἐλάττω τὰ [p. 153] ψεύσματά ἐστι τῶν περὶ τοὺς θεούς: ἔπειτα ὠφέλειάν τινα εἶχε τοῖς τότε Ἕλλησιν, ὅπως μὴ θορυβηθῶσιν, ἐὰν γένηται πόλεμος αὐτοῖς πρὸς τοὺς ἐκ τῆς Ἀσίας, ὥσπερ καὶ προσεδοκᾶτο. ἀνεμέσητον δὲ Ἕλληνα ὄντα τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ πάντα τρόπον ὠφελεῖν.

  [147] But why speak of human affairs when people maintain and dare to say that Uranus was mutilated by Cronus, and the latter by Zeus? Just as soon as anyone has thought of an absurdity, as often happens, it is absurd to refuse to believe it.

  But I wish to offer a defence in behalf of Homer by saying that there is nothing wrong in accepting his fictions. First, they are much less serious than the falsehoods told about the gods. Second, there was some advantage in them for the Greeks of those days, since they saved them from being alarmed in case war, as was expected, arose between them and the people of Asia. We can pardon one who, being a Greek, used every means to aid his countrymen.

  [148] τοῦτο δὲ τὸ στρατήγημα παρὰ πολλοῖς ἐστιν. ἐγὼ γοῦν ἀνδρὸς ἤκουσα Μήδου λέγοντος ὅτι οὐδὲν ὁμολογοῦσιν οἱ Πέρσαι τῶν παρὰ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν, ἀλλὰ Δαρεῖον μέν φασιν ἐπὶ Νάξον καὶ Ἐρέτριαν πέμψαι τοὺς περὶ Δᾶτιν καὶ Ἀρταφέρνην, κἀκείνους ἑλόντας τὰς πόλεις ἀφικέσθαι παρὰ βασιλέα. ὁρμούντων δὲ αὐτῶν περὶ τὴν Εὔβοιαν ὀλίγας ναῦς ἀποσκεδασθῆναι πρὸς τὴν Ἀττικήν, οὐ πλείους τῶν εἴκοσι, καὶ γενέσθαι τινὰ μάχην τοῖς ναύταις πρὸς τοὺς αὐτόθεν ἐκ τοῦ τόπου.

  [148] This is a very common device. I heard, for instance, a Mede declare that the Persians concede none of the claims made by the Greeks, but maintain that Darius despatched Datis and Artaphernes against Naxos and Eretria, and that after capturing these cities they returned to the king; that, however, while they were lying at anchor off Euboea, a few of their ships were driven on to the Attic coast — not more than twenty — and their crews had some kind of an engagement with the inhabitants of that place;

  [149] μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα Ξέρξην ἐπὶ τὴν Ἑλλάδα στρατεύσαντα Λακεδαιμονίους μὲν νικῆσαι περὶ Θερμοπύλας καὶ τὸν βασιλέα αὐτῶν ἀποκτεῖναι Λεωνίδην, τὴν δὲ τῶν Ἀθηναίων πόλιν ἑλόντα κατασκάψαι, καὶ ὅσοι μὴ διέφυγον ἀνδραποδίσασθαι. ταῦτα δὲ ποιήσαντα καὶ φόρους ἐπιθέντα τοῖς Ἕλλησιν εἰς τὴν Ἀσίαν ἀπελθεῖν. ὅτι μὲν οὖν ψευδῆ ταῦτά ἐστιν οὐκ ἄδηλον, ὅτι δὲ εἰκὸς ἦν τὸν βασιλέα κελεῦσαι στρατεῦσαι τοῖς ἄνω ἔθνεσιν οὐκ ἀδύνατον, ἵνα μὴ θορυβῶσιν. εἰ δὴ καὶ Ὅμηρος ἐποίει τοῦτο, συγγιγνώσκειν ἄξιον.

  [149] that, later on, Xerxes in his expedition against Greece conquered the Lacedaemonians at Thermopylae and slew their king Leonidas, then captured and razed the city of the Athenians and sold into slavery all who did not escape; and that after these successes he laid tribute upon the Greeks and withdrew to Asia. Now it is quite clear that this is a false account, but, since it was the natural thing to do, it is quite possible that the king ordered this story to be spread among the inland tribes in order to keep them quiet. So if Homer used this same device we ought to forgive him.

  [150] ἴσως ἂν οὖν εἴποι τις ἀνήκοος, Οὐκ ὀρθῶς Ἕλληνας καθαιρεῖς. ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν ἔστιν ἔτι τοιοῦτον, οὐδὲ ἔστι δέος μή ποτε ἐπιστρατεύσωνται ἐπὶ τὴν Ἑλλάδα τῶν ἐκ τῆς Ἀσίας τινές: ἥ τε γὰρ Ἑλλὰς ὑφ᾽ ἑτέροις ἐστὶν ἥ τε Ἀσία. τὸ δὲ ἀληθὲς οὐκ ὀλίγου ἄξιον. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις, εἰ ᾔδειν ὅτι πείσω ταῦτα λέγων, ἴσως ἂν ἐβουλευσάμην εἰπεῖν. ὅμως δὲ μείζω καὶ δυσχερέστερα ὀνείδη φημὶ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἀφελεῖν.

  [150] Perhaps, ho
wever, some uninformed person may say, “It is not right for you to disparage the Greeks in this way.” Well, the situation has changed and there is no longer any fear of an Asiatic people ever marching against Greece. For Greece is subject to others and so is Asia. Besides, the truth is worth a great deal. And in addition to all this, had I known that my words would carry conviction, perhaps I should have decided not to speak at all. But nevertheless I maintain that I have freed the Greeks from reproaches greater and more distressing.

  [151] τὸ μὲν γὰρ μὴ ἑλεῖν τινα πόλιν οὐδὲν ἄτοπον, οὐδέ γε τὸ στρατεύσαντας ἐπὶ χώραν μηδὲν αὐτοῖς προσήκουσαν ἔπειτα εἰρήνην ποιησαμένους ἀπελθεῖν, οὐδέ γε ἄνδρα ἀγαθὸν ὄντα τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπὸ ἀνδρὸς ὁμοίου τελευτῆσαι μαχόμενον, [p. 154] οὐδὲ τοῦτο ὄνειδος: ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀποδέξαιτο ἄν τις μέλλων ἀποθνῄσκειν, ὥσπερ ὅ γε Ἀχιλλεὺς πεποίηται λέγων, ὥς μ᾽ ὄφελ᾽ Ἕκτωρ κτεῖναι, ὅς ἐνθάδε τέτραφ᾽ ἄριστος.

  [151] That a man should fail in the capture of a city is nothing unusual, nor is it, either, to have made a campaign against a country which was no concern of theirs and then to have retreated after making peace; and for a man of noble spirit to fall in battle by the hand of a worthy foe, that too is no reproach. Nay, a man who is on the point of death might well meet it as Achilles is represented to have done when he said,

  “Would that Hector, the most brave

  Of warriors reared upon the Trojan soil,

  Had slain me.”

  [152] τὸν δὲ ἄριστον ὄντα τῶν Ἑλλήνων ὑπὸ τοῦ φαυλοτάτου τῶν πολεμίων ἀποθανεῖν τῷ ὄντι μέγα ὄνειδος: ὁμοίως δὲ τὸν νοῦν ἔχεινδοκοῦντα καὶ σωφρονέστατον εἶναι τῶν Ἑλλήνων πρῶτον μὲν τὰ πρόβατα καὶ τοὺς βοῦς ἀποσφάττειν, βουλόμενον ἀποκτεῖναι τοὺς

  [152] But for the bravest of the Greeks to be slain by the most contemptible man among the enemy, that indeed is a great reproach; and likewise for one who was reputed to be a man of intelligence and the most temperate of the Greeks to begin by slaughtering the sheep and oxen when he meant to slay the kings and then to despatch himself, all for the sake of a suit of armour, is most shameful.

  [153] βασιλέας, ὕστερον δὲ αὑτὸν ἀνελεῖν ὅπλων ἕνεκεν αἴσχιστον. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις Ἀστυάνακτα μὲν ἀνδρὸς ἀγαθοῦ παῖδα οὕτως ὠμῶς ἀνελεῖν ῥίψαντας ἀπὸ τοῦ τείχους, καὶ ταῦτα κοινῇ δόξαν τῷστρατοπέδῳ καὶ τοῖς βασιλεῦσι: Πολυξένην δὲ παρθένον ἀποσφάττειν ἐπὶ τάφῳ καὶ τοιαύτας χεῖσθαι χοὰς τῷ τῆς θεᾶς υἱεῖ: Κασσάνδραν δέ, παναγῆ κόρην, ἱέρειαν τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος, ἐν τῷ τεμένει φθαρῆναι τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς, ἐχομένην τοῦ ἀγάλματος, καὶ τοῦτο πρᾶξαι μηδένα τῶν φαύλων μηδὲ τῶν ἀναξίων, ἀλλ᾽ ὅσπερ ἦν ἐν

  [153] Furthermore, when Astyanax, the son of a noble warrior, is so brutally slain by being hurled from the city walls, and indeed by the united decision of army and kings; when the maiden Polyxena is sacrificed at the tomb and such libations are made to the son of a goddess; when Cassandra, a consecrated maiden and priestess of Apollo, is outraged in the sanctuary of Athena while clinging to the goddess’ statue, and this is done, not by some obscure or worthless man, but by one of the most prominent leaders;

  [154] τοῖς ἀρίστοις: Πρίαμον δὲ τὸν βασιλέα τῆς Ἀσίας ἐν ἐσχάτῳ γήρᾳ κατατρωθέντα παρὰ τὸν τοῦ Διὸς βωμόν, ἀφ᾽ οὗ τὸ γένος ἦν, ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ σφαγῆναι, καὶ μηδὲ τοῦτο εἰργάσθαι μηδένα τῶν ἀφανῶν, ἀλλὰ τὸν τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως υἱόν, καὶ ταῦτα ἑστιαθέντα ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ σωθέντα ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου πρότερον: Ἑκάβην δέ,δύστηνον τοσούτων μητέρα παίδων, Ὀδυσσεῖ δοθῆναι ἐπὶ ὕβρει, ὑπό τε τοῦ μεγέθους τῶν κακῶν πάνυ γελοίως κύνα γενέσθαι: τὸν δὲ βασιλέα τῶν Ἑλλήνων τὴν ἱερὰν κόρην τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος, ἣν οὐδεὶς ἐτόλμησε γῆμαι διὰ τὸν θεόν, αὐτὸν ἀγαγέσθαι γυναῖκα, ὅθεν ἔδοξε τεθνηκέναι δικαίως: πόσῳ κρείττω ταῦτα μὴ γενόμενατοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἢ Τροίαν ἁλῶναι; [p. 155]

  [154] when Priam, the king of Asia, in extreme old age is wounded beside the altar of Zeus, from whom he was descended, and is slaughtered upon it, and no obscure man perpetrates this deed either, but the very son of Achilles, in spite of the fact that Achilles, his father, had entertained Priam and spared his life on a former occasion; when Hecuba, the sorrow-stricken mother of so many children, is given to Odysseus to her shame and under the weight of her miseries is changed to a dog — an utterly ridiculous idea; and when the lord of the Greeks takes as his bride that holy virgin of Apollo, whom no one had dared to marry for fear of the god — an act for which he is held to have met a deserved fate — how much better for the Greeks never to have committed these excesses than to have captured Troy!

  THE TWELFTH OR OLYMPIC DISCOURSE: OR, ON MAN’S FIRST CONCEPTION OF GOD

  Ὀλυμπικὸς ἢ περὶ τῆς πρώτης τοῦ θεοῦ ἐννοίας

  THE TWELFTH OR OLYMPIC DISCOURSE: OR, ON MAN’S FIRST CONCEPTION OF GOD

  The Olympic Discourse was delivered by Dio at Olympia in the year A.D. 97 before a large audience of Greeks which had come to the city to witness the games, and in sight of the famous statue of Zeus which had been made by Pheidias, the greatest of Greek sculptors, more than five centuries before.

  After his introductory remarks, in which he tells us that he has just returned from the Danube, where the Roman army under Trajan was about to begin the Second Dacian War, he raises the question as to whether he shall tell his hearers about the land of the Dacians and the impending war, or take a subject suggested by the god in whose presence they stood. He chooses the latter and, after explaining that a conception of the nature of the gods, and especially of the highest one, is innate in all mankind, and that this innate conception and belief is strengthened by men’s experiences and observations in the world about them, Dio gives a classification of the way in which a conception of and a belief in their existence are implanted in the minds of men. In section he makes a classification into notions innate and notions acquired. Then in section and following he subdivides the acquired notions into (1) the voluntary and hortatory, given by the poets, (2) the compulsory and prescriptive, given by the lawgivers, (3) those given by the painters and sculptors, and (4) the notions and concepts as set forth and expounded by the philosophers. He is careful, however, to point out that the poets, lawgivers, and sculptors and others would have no influence whatever if it were not for that primary and innate notion.

  After this the speaker proceeds to what is the most important part of his address, in which he offers a great wealth of apparently original ideas as to what is the field and function of the plastic arts and what are their limitations. He puts his thoughts on this subject into the mouth of Pheidias, who takes the specific case of his own great statue of Zeus and attempts to show that he has used all the resources of the sculptor’s art in producing a worthy statue of the greatest of the gods. Pheidias in the course of his exposition says among other things that he took his con
ception of Zeus from Homer, and he makes a detailed comparison between the respective capacities of poetry and sculpture to portray and represent, to the decided advantage of poetry.

  No ancient writer up to Dio’s time, whose works are extant, has given us such a full treatment of the subject. The others, such as Plutarch, make just a passing reference to the plastic arts. Certainly no one of them has made such a detailed comparison between them and poetry. Not until we come to Flavius Josephus do we find such a treatment of the subject, and Dio by many centuries anticipated the most important principles upon which the theory of Lessing’s Laokoön is based.

  Paul Hagen, however, in his Quaestiones Dioneae (Kiliae 1887) attempts with some success to show by a comparison with certain passages in Cicero, Pliny, and Quintilian that Dio was not original in these theories of art, but got them from Pergamum, where there was a famous school of sculpture flourishing at this time. The best known example of its work is the ‘Dying Gaul,’ now in the Capitoline Museum in Rome. Dio certainly was within easy reach of Pergamum at any rate. If he was not original in his ideas on art, he was at all events greatly interested in it, as is shown by his Thirty-First Discourse.

  Some maintain that Dio gave this address on more than one occasion and that traces of different recensions to make the address suit different places and audiences are to be found in the versionsº that have come down to us.

  [1] ἀλλ᾽ ἦ τὸ λεγόμενον, ὦ ἄνδρες, ἐγὼ καὶ παρ᾽ ὑμῖν καὶ παρ᾽ ἑτέροις πλείοσι πέπονθα τὸ τῆς γλαυκὸς ἄτοπον καὶ παράδοξον πάθος; ἐκείνην γὰρ οὐδὲν σοφωτέραν οὖσαν αὐτῶν οὐδὲ βελτίω τὸ εἶδος, ἀλλὰ τοιαύτην ὁποίαν ἴσμεν, ὅταν δήποτε φθέγξηται λυπηρὸν καὶ οὐδαμῶς ἡδύ, περιέπουσι τὰ ἄλλα ὄρνεα, καὶ ὅταν γε ἴδῃ μόνον, τὰ μὲν καθιζόμενα ἐγγύς, τὰ δὲ κύκλῳ περιπετόμενα, ὡς μὲν ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, καταφρονοῦντα τῆς φαυλότητος καὶ τῆς ἀσθενείας: οἱ δὲ ἄνθρωποί φασιν ὅτι θαυμάζει τὴν γλαῦκα τὰ ὄρνεα.