Delphi Complete Works of Dio Chrysostom

by Dio Chrysostom

  In this address three possible explanations of the life of man are offered. According to the first one, §§ 10-24, this world is a prison in which men are punished by the gods, who hate them because they are of the blood of the Titans. When any man’s punishment is completed, or he has left a son to suffer punishment in his stead, he is allowed to escape by death. According to the second explanation, §§ 26-27, this world is a colony founded by the gods for men, their descendants, whom at first they kept under their protection, but afterwards allowed to shift for themselves. The third explanation represents this world as a beautiful palace where men are entertained at a banquet from which God summons to himself those who have comported themselves best.

  After hearing this address Dio commends it highly and attempts to console the bereaved father and the younger son.

  In form this Discourse is a dialogue, reported directly, which contains a verbatim report of Charidemus’ address, which, in its turn, is made up almost entirely of indirect reports of what certain men, not definitely indicated, have said in explanation of man’s life in this world. The important part of the Discourse is, of course, Charidemus’s address, which gives these three explanations, while the conversation between Dio and the two bereaved ones is merely a framework to hold it. In Plato’s Phaedo also, which according to Philostratus (Lives of Sophists, 8.1 f. K.) was Dio’s favourite book on philosophy, the important part consists of the last words of Socrates as reported by Phaedo to his friend Echecrates. Corresponding to these last words of Socrates we have here the deathbed message of Charidemus. And further, Charidemus shows in the face of death the same fortitude and resignation that Socrates did.

  But did such a person as Charidemus, Dio’s ideal of a young religious philosopher, ever have an existence, as Socrates did; or have we merely a product of the imagination? von Arnim feels sure that he is a real character, while others are not so certain. On this point there is the same difference of opinion as there is regarding the actuality of Melancomas, Dio’s ideal young athlete. All, however, seem agreed that the conversation between Dio and the two bereaved is fictitious. But those who believe that Charidemus is a real character have next to consider whether the address on the life of man is really his work, modified perhaps by Dio, or whether it is altogether Dio’s. von Arnim thinks that the address is not at all like any of Dio’s work, but Friedrich Wilhelm (Philologus, vol. 75, 1918, p-365) has pointed out enough idea of Dio’s in it that are found in other Discourses of his, and also enough of his familiar words and phrases, to refute this view.

  In the next place, can we identify the man who, Charidemus says, offered him the explanation that this world is a prison? Dümmler (Academica, f.) and Hagen (Questiones Dioneae, ) suggest that he is the Cynic philosopher Antisthenes, while Friedrich Wilhelm (loc. cit., , footnote) maintains that he is a fictitious character. But we note that, although Charidemus begins with giving this explanation with § 10, he gives no hint of its source until he reaches the end of § 19, where, as if forgetting himself for the moment, he speaks as if it were his own. Then, at the beginning of § 20, he credits a wandering philosopher with giving him when a child some details about the chain to which all men are bound. After giving these details and therewith finishing the first explanation of man’s life, Charidemus says in § 25 that he believes this explanation comes from ‘some morose man who had suffered a great deal in his life and only late had gained true education’ (just like the two dogs in Discourse .). — It is this description of the man which makes Dümmler, Hagen, and Sonny think of Antisthenes. Now is Charidemus crediting this ‘morose man’ with the first explanation as a whole, or only with the part beginning with § 20? If the latter is the case, and the ‘wandering philosopher’ is identical with the ‘morose man,’ then Dio himself answers fairly well to this description. For Dio became a wandering philosopher during his exile and only then, as he believed, got true education, when he was 42 years of age or older. This would be ‘late in life’ for getting an education; or does he mean that this ‘morose man’ learned later not to regard this world as a prison? And it may well be that he was made ‘morose’ for the time being from having ‘suffered a great deal in his life.’ Is Dio thinking of himself when he uses these words, just as he is in Discourse ., where he speaks of a ‘sore distressed soul, having in the course of life drained the cup of many misfortunes and griefs, nor ever winning sweet sleep’? And besides, would not the injustice of his exile and the hardships which he endured tend to make him have a gloomy outlook on life and accept the opinions of those who regarded this world as a prison?

  Of course, when we identify the ‘morose’ man with the ‘wandering philosopher’ the first part of the explanation, where the world is spoken of as a prison, is not really credited to any one person, but it would seem reasonable to suppose that the man believing the second part of the first explain would accept the first part also, especially as the idea of men being bound to a chain is common to both. On the other hand, if we think of the ‘morose man’ as not identical with the ‘wandering philosopher,’ then in this morose man with his many sufferings in life we still have a fairly good description of the exiled Dio with only the one detail of his wandering life lacking, and the first explanation as a whole is definitely ascribed to him.

  Once more, who is the ‘peasant,’ also mentioned in § 25, ‘who spoke with a very rustic drawl and accent,’ the one from whom Charidemus says he heard the second and third explanations? Dümmler believes that it was one of the later Cynics, possibly Bion; but Sonny, while agreeing in the main, thinks that this later Cynic was more likely Cleanthes, because the man is described as a peasant. For Diogenes Laertius (7.2, p-171) says that Cleanthes made his living by watering a garden and digging earth. And further, the words ‘in praise of Zeus and the other gods’ may refer to Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus. Friedrich Wilhelm, on the other hand, thinks that this peasant is a purely imaginary character.

  But no matter how we identify the ‘morose man’ and the ‘peasant,’ it seems reasonable to suppose that the three explanations of life represent three stages in Dio’s own belief. After returning from exile he naturally acquired a more cheerful outlook on life and came to think of the gods as merely having become indifferent to men, and then later the prison has become a beautiful palace in which the king of the gods gives royal entertainment to men and rewards the best. Yet some parts of Dio’s belief did not change. He believed throughout that the gods exist, that they have something to do with man, and that man may overcome evil and receive his reward.

  And finally, there is the question as to the immediate and the ultimate sources of these three explanations of life and this world. Of course, if we believe that Antisthenes, the founder of the Cynic sect, offered the first and Cleanthes the second and third, for us a good deal of the question is settled. If we do not, then there is a great uncertainty. However, it has been shown that the idea of the world as a prison is Pythagorean and Orphic in origin, while Friedrich Wilhelm has offered a good many reasons for believing that Dio drew upon Posidonius for parts of all three explanations, although he with others thinks that there is a large Cynic element in the third. And since there are some thoughts that can be paralleled in Xenophon and Plato, it is reasonable to suppose that Dio drew to some extent also from these, his favourite authors.

  [1] Δ. Ἀκηκόειν μὲν καὶ πρότερον πρὶν ὑμᾶς ἰδεῖν πρὸ ἱκανοῦ περὶ τῆς Χαριδήμου τελευτῆς. εὐθὺς γὰρ ἐπυνθανόμην, ὡς παρέβαλον δευρί, περί τε ἄλλων τινῶν καὶ μάλιστα δὴ περὶ τούτων ἀμφοτέρων, ὅπου τε εἶεν καὶ ὅ,τι πράττοιεν. καί μοί τις ἐντυχὼν οὐ πάνυ τι αὐτοὺς ἐπιστάμενος, ἀλλ̓ ὅσον ἀκοῦσαι τὰ ὀνόματα, ἠρώτησεν εἰ τοὺς Τιμάρχου υἱεῖς λέγω: κἀμοῦ φήσαντος, τοῦτον ἐδήλου, τὸν νεώτερον
δὴ λέγων, ἐν Μεσσήνῃ ἔτι εἶναι μετὰ σοῦ διὰ τὸ πένθος τἀδελφοῦ: τελευτῆσαι γὰρ αὐτοῖν τὸν πρεσβύτερον.

  THE THIRTIETH DISCOURSE: CHARIDEMUS

  Dio. I had heard about the death of Charidemus some time ago, even before I saw you; for when I landed here, I straightway made inquiries about certain other persons and most especially about these two, wishing to learn where they were and how they were getting on. Then I chanced upon a man who did not know them very well, but had merely heard their names, who asked me if I meant the sons of Timarchus; and when I replied in the affirmative, he told me that this one, meaning the younger, was still in Messenia with you on account of his mourning for his brother; for, he said, the elder of the two had died.

  [2] φανερὸς οὖν ἦν Χαρίδημον ἀπαγγέλλων τεθνηκέναι: καὶ τότε μὲν ἐδόκει καὶ ἀμφιβολία τις εἶναι, καίτοι σαφῶς τἀνθρώπου εἰρηκότος: αὖθις δὲ ἀκριβέστερον ἔγνωμεν. καὶ οἶμαί γε ἐμαυτὸν οὐ πολύ τι ἔλαττον ὑμῶν δηχθῆναι: τὸ μὲν γὰρ μᾶλλον φάναι οὐ θεμιτὸν οὐδὲ ὅσιον ἡμῖν, εἴ τις ἐκεῖνον μᾶλλον ἐφίλει ὑμῶν τοῦ τε

  [2] So it was clear that he was reporting the death of Charidemus. Yet even then there appeared to be some uncertainty, although the man had spoken clearly enough; but afterwards we came to know with more certainty. Now I believe that I myself was almost as deeply pained as you men were; for to say ‘more pained’ would not be right nor proper for me, even if it were indeed true that one had loved him more than you, his father and his brother, did.

  [3] πατρὸς καὶ ἀδελφοῦ. καίτοι οὐ μέγα ἰσχύειν ἔοικεν ἡ φύσις ἐν τοῖς φαύλοις: οἷόν τι καὶ περὶ τοῦτον τὸν Ὀπούντιον ἀκούω γεγονέναι χαρίεντα καὶ κομψὸν νεανίσκον ἀποβαλόντα, ἡμέτερον κἀκεῖνον ἑταῖρον, ἀλλ̓ ὅμως ἔλαττον αὐτὸν λυπηθῆναί φασιν ἢ εἴ τι ἄλλο τῶν ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας ἀπολωλέκει. ἀλλ̓ ὑμεῖς γε πάνυ ἐοίκατον ἀχθομένω τῇ συμφορᾷ: καὶ οὐδὲν θαυμαστόν: ἐπεὶ καὶ τῇ πόλει ὑμῶν καὶ τῇ Ἑλλάδι πάσῃ ὠφέλιμος ἂν ἦν τοιοῦτος ἀνὴρ ἐν τῷ βίῳ διαγενόμενος οἷος δὴ Χαρίδημος τάχα ἔμελλεν ἔσεσθαι. οὐ γὰρ ἔγωγε ἐκείνου μειρακίου ὄντος οὐδένα ἔγνων εὐψυχότερον οὐδὲ ἄμεινον πεφυκότα.

  [3] And yet the strength of natural affection does seem to be not very great in persons of the common sort. Something like this happened, I hear, in the case of our Opuntian friend here after he had lost a son, an agreeable and clever young man, who was also our companion; but nevertheless they tell me that he grieved less over his death than if he had lost anything else out of his house. You two, however, seem to be very much distressed by your affliction, and no wonder; for such a man as Charidemus certainly would speedily have turned out to be, would have been useful, not only to your city, but to all Hellas, if he had lived. I, for my part, never knew any young lad of higher spirit than he nor of better natural parts.

  [4] — Τ. Εἴ γε ᾔδεις ὅπως διέκειτο πρὸς σέ, πολὺ ἂν μᾶλλον ἐνεκωμίαζες αὐτόν. ἐμοὶ μὲν γὰρ ἐδόκει κἀμοῦ τοῦ πατρός, οὐ μόνον τῶν ἄλλων ἀνθρώπων σὲ προτιμᾶν, ὅς γε καὶ ἐν τῇ νόσῳ κἀπειδὴ πρὸς αὐτῷ σχεδόν τι τῷ θανάτῳ ἦν, καὶ ἡμῶν ἔνδον ὄντων καὶ ἄλλων ξυγγενῶν καὶ πολιτῶν καὶ γνωρίμων σὲ ὠνόμαζε, τὸ παράπαν [p. 296] πάνυ μόλις ἤδη φθεγγόμενος, καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐκέλευε λέγειν, ὅταν σοι ἐντύχωμεν, ὅτι σοῦ μεμνημένος ἐτελεύτα. καὶ γὰρ τὸ συνεῖναι αὐτῷ καὶ διαλέγεσθαι ἕως ὑστάτου παρέμεινεν. οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ ζῶν οὕτω διέκειτο ὥστε καὶ τῇ σιωπῇ καὶ τῷ βαδίσματι καὶ τοῖς

  [4] Timarchus. Yes, and if you knew how he felt towards you, your praise would be much warmer. It seemed to me that he held you in more honour than he did even me, his father, not to mention other people, since in his illness and even when he was practically at death’s door, and we were at his bedside along with other relatives, fellow citizens and acquaintances, he kept mentioning you by name, although by then he could scarcely speak at all, and bade us say when we met you that he was thinking of you when he died. For he retained consciousness and the power to speak up to the very last. Furthermore, even when he was alive and well, he was so attached to you that he imitated you in his taciturnity, his gait, and in all other respects, as people who knew used to say.

  [5] ἄλλοις πᾶσί σε ἐμιμεῖτο, ὡς ἔλεγον οἱ εἰδότες. — Δ. Οὔτοι ταῦτα ἐμιμεῖτο ἐκεῖνος οὔτε ἐμὲ οὔτε ἄλλον οὐδένα, ἀλλ̓ οὕτως πεφύκει. πρότερον δὲ ἴσως ὑμᾶς ἔτι παῖς ὤν ἐλάνθανεν: ἔπειτα προϊὼν ἐκδηλότερος ἐγένετο. πολὺ γὰρ μᾶλλον ἐκείνῳ ἔπρεπεν ἢ ἄλλῳ τινὶ τό τε ἀνδρεῖον καὶ τὸ σεμνὸν τοῦ σχήματος. ἀλλὰ μή τι ὑμᾶς ἐλύπει τούτοις ἢ σκυθρωπότερος ὑμῖν ἐφαίνετο; — Τ. Ἐμοὶ μὲν γὰρ ἐδόκει τοὐναντίον πολλῶν ἱλαρώτερος καὶ πρὸς τὸ παίζειν ἕτοιμος, ὅσαι ἐλευθέριοι παιδιαί, καὶ ἀεί πως μειδιᾶν πρὸς τοὺς συνήθεις. γελῶντα δὲ αὐτὸν ἀνέδην οὐ πολλάκις εἶδον. οὐδὲν οὖν ἡμᾶς ἐλύπει. καὶ γὰρ δὴ καὶ ἐπῃνεῖτο ὑπὸ πολλῶν καὶ μᾶλλον ἐκεῖνον ᾐσχύνοντο οἱ πολῖται δύο καὶ εἴκοσιν ἐτῶν ὄντα ῾τοσούτων γὰρ ἐτελεύτησεν̓ ἢ τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τε καὶ ἐνδόξους. —

  [5] Dio. Oh no, he was not imitating in those matters either me or anybody else; but they were natural with him. Perhaps you did not notice it at first when he was still a child; then as he grew older, it became more marked. For a manly and dignified bearing came much more naturally to him than to anybody else. But I wonder if he pained you at all by these characteristics or appeared to you to be somewhat gloomy of countenance.

  Tim. No, on the contrary, I thought that he was more cheerful than many and ready to play such games as were proper for free-born children, and always somehow ready to give a smile to people whom he knew; but I did not often see him laughing without restraint. So he caused us no worry; and what is more, he won the commendation of many people, and our fellow citizens had more respect for him, although he was only twenty-two years old — for that was his age when he died — than they had for those who were older and in the public eye.

  [6] Δ. Ἀλλ̓ ἦ τι ἄλλο ὑμῖν ἐπέστειλεν ἢ διελέχθη τελευτῶν; — Τ. Πολλὰ καὶ δαιμόνια, ὥς γε ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ πατρὶ ὄντι: ὅς γε ἐν τούτῳ τῆς ἡλικίας ἐκ τοῦ βίου μεθιστάμενος οὐχ ὅπως ὠλοφύρετο αὑτὸν ἢ λυπουμένῳ ἐῴκει, ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον ἡμᾶς παρεμυθεῖτο. καὶ τά γε τελευταῖα τὸν παῖδα καλέσας ἐκέλευε γράφειν, ὥσπερ ἐνθουσιῶν, παράκλησίν τινα ἡμῖν, ὥστε ὑπενόουν ἐγὼ μὴ ἄρ�
� ἐξεστηκὼς ἤδη διὰ τὸν θάνατον ταῦτα ποιοῖ: πλὴν ὅτι οἱ παρόντες θαυμαστῶς

  [6] Dio. But did he give you any other commission or say anything else on his death-bed?

  Tim. Yes, many remarkable things — at least, so I, his father, think. For, although he was departing from life at such an early age, so far was he from lamenting his fate or showing any grief that on the contrary he tried to comfort us. Then finally, he called the servant and dictated to him, like one inspired, an address for our consolation, so that I began to suspect that perhaps it was because his mind was now wandering on account of the nearness of death that he was doing this. Those who were at his bedside, though, praised it highly.

  Dio. Pray, have you what he wrote?

  [7] ἐπῄνουν. — Δ. Ἔχεις οὖν τὰ γεγραμμένα; — Τ. Πῶς γὰρ οὔ; — Δ. Θέλεις οὖν εἰπεῖν; — Τ. Ἀλλ̓ αἰσχύνομαι μὴ οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἔχῃ, ὡς ὑπὸ νεωτέρου τε καὶ ἐν τοιούτῳ καιρῷ εἰρημένα. καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνος ἐδόκει μοι μᾶλλον ἑνὸς σοῦ παρόντος ἂν εὐλαβηθῆναί τι εἰπεῖν ἢ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων. — Δ. Οὐ πρὸς ἀλλότριον ἀναγνώσῃ, ὦ βέλτιστε, καὶ ἅμα οὐ τὴν ἑρμηνείαν ποθῶ γνῶναι τοσοῦτον ὅσον τὴν διάνοιαν ἀφ̓ ἧς ἔλεγεν, εἰ τῷ ὄντι εὐθύμως

  [7] Tim. Yes, indeed.

  Dio. Then are you willing to repeat it?

  Tim. O yes, only ashamed for fear that it is not in proper shape, because it was spoken by a comparatively young man and at such a time. For I really thought that he would have been more careful in what he said, had you been the only one present, than he was with all the rest there.