[8] For in what respect is it a greater feat to cast a spell upon stones and trees and wild beasts and to make them follow than to have mastered so completely men of alien race who do not understand the Hellenic speech, men who have acquaintance with neither the poet’s tongue nor the deeds of which his poem tells, but are, as I believe, simply enchanted by a lyre? Moreover, I believe that many barbarians who are still more ignorant than those men of India have heard of the name of Homer, if nothing more, though they have no clear notion what it signifies, whether animal or vegetable or something else still.
[9] οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν βίον ἐπαινέσαι τις ἂν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς πολὺ μᾶλλον τῆς ποιήσεως. τὸ γὰρ ἐν πενίᾳ διαγενέσθαι καὶ ἀλώμενον καὶ τοσοῦτον ἀπὸ τῶν ποιημάτων πορίζοντα ὅσον ἀποζῆν θαυμαστῆς ἀνδρείας καὶ μεγαλοφροσύνης: ἔτι δὲ τὸ μηδαμοῦ γεγραφέναι τὸ αὑτοῦ ὄνομα, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ ἐν τῇ ποιήσει αὑτοῦ μνησθῆναι, καίτοι τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων, ὁπόσοι τινὰ ἔδοξαν ἔχειν δύναμιν ἢ περὶ ποίησιν ἢ καταλογάδην συγγράφοντες, καὶ πρῶτον καὶ τελευταῖον τὸ ἑαυτῶν ὄνομα γραφόντων, πολλῶν δὲ καὶ ἐν αὐτοῖς τοῖς λόγοις
[9] However that may be, Homer’s life deserves praise much more than his verse. For example, his having lived in poverty, a wanderer, and making from his poems only enough to sustain life is evidence of remarkable fortitude and nobility of soul; and besides, his never having written his name anywhere, yes, never having even referred to himself anywhere in his poetry, though all other writers with any reputation for skill in composing either verse or prose write their names both at the beginning and at the end, and many even in the body of their works, both prose and verse. Take, for example, Hecataeus and Herodotus and Thucydides,
[10] τε καὶ ποιήμασιν, ὥσπερ Ἑκαταῖός τε καὶ Ἡρόδοτος καὶ Θουκυδίδης, οὗτος μὲν οὖν οὐχ ἅπαξ μόνον ἐν ἀρχῇ τῆς ἱστορίας, ἀλλὰ πολλάκις διαμαρτυρόμενος καθ̓ ἕκαστον χειμῶνα καὶ θέρος ὅτι ταῦτα ξυνέγραψε Θουκυδίδης. ὁ δὲ οὕτως ἄρα ἐλευθέριος ἦν καὶ μεγαλόφρων ὥστε οὐδαμοῦ φανήσεται τῆς ποιήσεως αὑτοῦ μεμνημένος, ἀλλὰ τῷ ὄντι ὥσπερ οἱ προφῆται τῶν θεῶν ἐξ ἀφανοῦς καὶ ἀδύτου ποθὲν φθεγγόμενος.
[10] Thucydides, in fact, solemnly affirming, not merely once at the beginning of his history, but many times, in connexion with each winter and summer, “Thucydides composed this.” Homer, on the contrary, was so liberal and magnanimous that nowhere in his poetry will he be found to refer to himself, but in fact, like the prophets of the gods, he speaks, as it were, from the invisible, from somewhere in the inmost sanctuary.
[11] ὅτι δὲ καὶ ὠφέλιμα πάντα καὶ χρήσιμα ἔγραψε, τὰ μὲν ἄλλα εἰ διεξίοι τις, πολὺ ἂν ἔργον εἴη, ὅσα πεποίηκε περὶ ἀρετῆς καὶ κακίας: περὶ δὲ τῶν βασιλέων ἐν βραχεῖ οἵους φησὶ δεῖν εἶναι. ὃν γὰρ ἂν ἐπαινῇ τῶν βασιλέων, Διὶ μῆτιν ἀτάλαντόν φησιν εἶναι καὶ διοτρεφέας ἅπαντας τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς βασιλεῖς καὶ τὸν Μίνω, μεγίστην ἐπὶ δικαιοσύνῃ δόξαν ἔχοντα παρὰ τοῖς Ἕλλησι, τοῦ Διὸς ὁμιλητήν τε καὶ μαθητὴν εἶναί φησιν, ὡς πρῶτον δὴ καὶ μέγιστον [p. 113] ἁπάντων ἐκεῖνον βασιλέα καὶ μόνον αὐτὸν ἐπιστάμενον καὶ παραδιδόντα τὴν βασιλικὴν τέχνην, καὶ τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς βασιλεῖς δέον πρὸς ἐκεῖνον βλέποντας κατευθύνειν τὴν ἀρχήν, ἀφομοιοῦντας, ὡς
[11] Again, since everything Homer wrote is both beneficial and practically serviceable, if one were to review all he has said on the subject of virtue and vice, it would be a vast undertaking; however, on the subject of kings a brief statement must be made as to what he says they should be like. Whenever, for instance, he praises any king, he calls him “the peer of Zeus in wisdom”; and all the good kings are “Zeus-nurtured”; and Minos, who has the highest reputation among the Greeks for justice, he says is both the associate and pupil of Zeus, his idea being that Minos was the first and greatest king of all, and the only one who himself understood and handed down the art of kingship, and also that good kings should shape their course with an eye to Minos, patterning their own conduct after a god, so far as humanly possible.
[12] δυνατόν ἔστιν ἀνθρώποις, θεῷ τὸν αὑτῶν τρόπον. τὸ δὲ τοῦ Διὸς ἦθος καὶ τὴν βασιλείαν ὁποία τις ἦν, ἐν πολλοῖς μὲν ἄλλοις ποιεῖ φανεράν, ὡς δ̓ ἐν βραχεῖ περιλαβόντα εἰπεῖν τὴν δύναμιν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν διάνοιαν δηλοῖ πολλάκις, ἀεί ποτε αὐτὸν οὕτως ὀνομάζων ,πατὴρ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τἑ: ὡς δέον τὴν τῶν βασιλέων ἐπιμέλειαν πατρικὴν καὶ κηδεμονικὴν εἶναι μετ̓ εὐνοίας καὶ φιλίας καὶ μηδέποτε ἄλλως προσῆκον ἀνθρώπων προΐστασθαί τε καὶ ἄρχειν ἤ ἀγαπῶντα καὶ προνοοῦντα, ὁπότε ὁ Ζεὺς οὐχ ὑπερορᾷ πατὴρ ἀνθρώπων καλεῖσθαι.
[12] Moreover, the poet makes manifest the character of Zeus and the nature of his kingship in a multitude of ways, but, to put it briefly and succinctly, he frequently indicates his power and disposition by the constant epithet, “father of gods and of men,” the notion being that the care exercised by kings should be that of a solicitous father, accompanied by kindness and affection, and that he should never lead and govern men in any other way than with love and protective care, since Zeus does not disdain being called men’s father.
THE FIFTY-FOURTH DISCOURSE: ON SOCRATES
ΠΕΡΙ ΣΩΚΡΑΤΟΥΣ.
THE FIFTY-FOURTH DISCOURSE: ON SOCRATES
This little tribute to Socrates is presumably the prelude to some longer discussion. It affords no clue as to either the occasion or the place where the speech was delivered, but the speaker’s rather scornful treatment of the sophists, who occupy fully one-third of the piece, and his affectionate regard for Socrates point clearly to some date subsequent to Dio’s exile.
Hippias of Elis, Gorgias of Leontini, Polus, and Prodicus are all familiar figures among the sophists who made such a stir in Greece toward the close of the fifth century B.C. All make their appearance in the pages of Plato, Hippias and Gorgias having provided the titles for three of his dialogues. One might wonder why Dio refrains from naming “the man from Abdera” (§ 2). Abdera’s fame may be said to rest upon that of two of her native sons, Democritus, the famous philosopher, and Protagoras, no less famous as a sophist. In spite of the verb φιλοσοφῶν in § 2, we infer that it is the latter whom Dio has in mind, and also he would naturally take his place beside the four sophists already named. Like them, he figures prominently in Plato’s dialogues, and one of them bears his name.
[1] Ἱππίας ὁ Ἠλεῖος καὶ Γοργίας ὁ Λεοντῖνος καὶ Πῶλος καὶ Πρόδικος οἱ σοφισταὶ χρόνον τινὰ ἤνθησαν ἐν τῇ Ἑλλάδι καὶ θαυμαστῆς ἐτύγχανον φήμης, οὐ μόνον ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις πόλεσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῇ Σπάρ
τῃ καὶ παῤ Ἀθηναίοις, καὶ χρήματα πολλὰ συνέλεξαν, δημοσίᾳ τε παρὰ τῶν πόλεων καὶ παρὰ δυναστῶν τινων καὶ βασιλέων καὶ ἰδιωτῶν, ὡς ἕκαστος ἔχοι δυνάμεως. ἔλεγον δὲ πολλοὺς μὲν λόγους, νοῦν δὲ οὐκ ἔχοντας οὐδὲ βραχύν: ἐφ̓ ὧν ἔστιν οἶμαι χρήματα πορίζειν καὶ ἀνθρώπους ἠλιθίους ἀρέσκειν.
The Fifty-fourth Discourse: On Socrates
The sophists, Hippias of Elis and Gorgias of Leontini and Polus and Prodicus, flourished in Greece for some time and won marvellous acclaim, not alone in the cities at large, but even in Sparta and Athens, and they amassed much wealth, each according to his ability, both by public grant from the several states and also from certain princes and kings and men in private life. But though they made many speeches, their speeches were devoid of sense, even the slightest — the kind of speech from which, no doubt, it is possible to make money and to please simpletons!
[2] ἄλλος δέ τις ἀνὴρ Ἀβδηρίτης οὐχ ὅπως ἀργύριον παῤ ἑτέρων ἐλάμβανεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ διέφθειρε τὴν οὐσίαν τὴν αὑτοῦ συχνὴν οὖσαν καὶ ἀπώλεσε φιλοσοφῶν ἀναισθήτως δῆλον ὅτι καὶ ζητῶν ὧν οὐδὲν ὄφελος αὐτῷ. ἦν δὲ καὶ Σωκράτης Ἀθήνησι πένης ἀνὴρ [p. 114] καὶ δημοτικός, οὐδὲ οὗτος ὑπὸ τῆς πενίας ἀναγκαζόμενος οὐθὲν λαμβάνειν: καίτοι γυναῖκα εἶχεν οὐ μισοῦσαν ἀργύριον καὶ παῖδας δεομένους διατροφῆς καὶ τῶν νέων λέγεται τοῖς πλουσιωτάτοις συνεῖναι, ὧν φασιν ἐνίους μηδενὸς ἁπλῶς φείδεσθαι πρὸς αὐτόν.
[2] But there was another, a native of Abdera, who, far from acquiring money from others, not only was steadily ruining his own estate, which was a large one, but finally lost it by pursuing philosophy, foolishly, it is plain to see, and seeking after what was of no material advantage to him.
[3] ἦν δὲ τἄλλα τῷ τρόπῳ κοινὸς καὶ φιλάνθρωπος, καὶ παρεῖχεν αὑτὸν τοῖς βουλομένοις προσιέναι καὶ διαλέγεσθαι, περί τε τὴν ἀγορὰν τὰ πολλὰ διατρίβων καὶ εἰς τὰς παλαίστρας εἰσιὼν καὶ πρὸς ταῖς τραπέζαις καθεζόμενος ῾ὥσπερ οἱ τὰ ὤνια τὰ φαῦλα δεικνύντες ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ καὶ περιφέροντες ἐπὶ τὰς θύρας᾿ εἴ τις ἄρα ἐθελήσει πυθέσθαι τι καὶ ἀκοῦσαι τῶν νεωτέρων ἢ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων. οἱ μὲν οὖν πολλοὶ τῶν δυνατῶν καὶ ῥητόρων προσεποιοῦντο μηδὲ ὁρᾶν αὐτόν: ὁ δὲ προσελθών, ὥσπερ οἱ προσπταίσαντες,
[3] And there was also Socrates, a poor man at Athens and a man of the people, who also was not driven by his poverty to accept anything; and yet he had a wife who had no hatred for money, and also sons who required support, and, besides, he is said to have associated with the wealthiest among the young men, some of whom are reported to have begrudged him literally nothing. However, he was in general sociable in his nature and a lover of his kind, and in particular he made himself accessible to all who wished to approach and converse with him, not only spending his time for the most part about the market-place, but visiting the palaestra and sitting down near the tables of the money-changers — quite like the people who display their petty wares in the market or peddle them from door to door — on the chance that some one, whether young or old, might wish to ask some question and hear his answer. Now then, most of the influential persons and professional speakers pretended not even to see him; but whoever of that description did approach him, like those who have struck something with their foot, got hurt and speedily departed.
[4] ἀλγήσας ταχὺ ἀπηλλάττετο. ἀλλὰ δὴ τῶν μὲν θαυμαζομένων ἐκείνων σοφιστῶν ἐκλελοίπασιν οἱ λόγοι καὶ οὐδὲν ἢ τὰ ὀνόματα μόνον ἔστιν: οἱ δὲ τοῦ Σωκράτους οὐκ οἶδ̓ ὅπως διαμένουσι καὶ διαμενοῦσι τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον, τούτου δὲ αὐτοῦ γράψαντος ἢ καταλιπόντος οὔτε σύγγραμμα οὔτε διαθήκας. ἐτελεύτα γὰρ ὁ ἀνὴρ ἀδιάθετος τήν τε σοφίαν καὶ τὰ χρήματα. ἀλλὰ οὐσίαν μὲν οὐκ εἶχεν, ὥστε δημευθῆναι, καθάπερ εἴωθε γίγνεσθαι ἐπὶ τῶν καταδικασθέντων: οἱ λόγοι δὲ τῷ ὄντι ἐδημεύθησαν μὰ Δἴ οὐχ ὑπ̓ ἐχθρῶν, ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ τῶν φίλων: οὐδὲν μέντοι ἧττον καὶ νῦν φανερῶν τε ὄντων καὶ τιμωμένων ὀλίγοι ξυνιᾶσι καὶ μετέχουσιν.
[4] However, while the words of those sophists, who won such admiration, have perished and nothing remains but their names alone, the words of Socrates, for some strange reason, still endure and will endure for all time, though he himself did not write or leave behind him either a treatise or a will. In fact, Socrates died intestate as to both his wisdom and his estate. Yet though he had no estate that could be made public property through confiscation — as is commonly done in the case of men who have been condemned as criminals — his words in reality have been made public property, not by foes, God knows, but by his friends; nevertheless, though they are even now not only accessible for all but also held in high esteem, few understand them and partake of their wisdom.
THE FIFTY-FIFTH DISCOURSE: ON HOMER AND SOCRATES
ΠΕΡΙ ΟΜΗΡΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΣΩΚΡΑΤΟΥΣ.
THE FIFTY-FIFTH DISCOURSE: ON HOMER AND SOCRATES
In his thirteenth discourse (§ 31) Dio speaks of having given instruction during his exile to groups of two and three. The document before us, if not actually a stenographic report of such a proceeding, at least portrays the method employed by Dio. Similar examples have been met already in Or. , , , and . In these, and in others like them to be met later, just as in some dialogues of Plato, there is at first a lively debate between teacher and pupil, after which the teacher takes possession of the field and expounds his doctrine with little or no interruption from the pupil. The text of Dio, however, does not reveal the identity of speakers other than the master himself. This may be regarded as a token that the dialogue is an authentic transcript of an actual experience, the reporter having been concerned to preserve a record of what was said and the pupil involved in the discussion being considered of too little consequence to deserve to have his name recorded. Dio certainly understood the psychological advantage that Plato derived from using real persons as the participants in his dialogues and calling them by name (cf. § 12), and it is hard to believe that if Dio’s dialogues were mere literary fictions he would have failed to avail himself of that advantage.
The theme of the present Discourse is that Socrates acquired his art as a teacher from Homer. The anonymous interlocutor is sceptical on that point, objecting that Socrates never met Homer, and also calling attention to the wide difference between the function of the poet and that of the philosopher. After successfully demolishing these objections, Dio proceeds to note certain points of resemblance between Homer and Socrates — their modesty, their scorn of wealth, their interest in ethical problems, their use of parables or similes as vehicles of instruction, and their method of employing specific human beings to illustrate virtues and vices. To this last-named point Dio devotes fully a third of his dialogue. His arguments seem to have silenced his pupil, for there is no rejoinder.
[1] Ἐπεὶ φαίνῃ
καὶ τἄλλα Σωκράτους ὢν ἐπαινέτης καὶ τὸν ἄνδρα ἐκπληττόμενος ἐν τοῖς λόγοις, ἔχεις μοι εἰπεῖν ὅτου μαθητὴς γέγονε τῶν σοφῶν: ὥσπερ Φειδίας μὲν ὁ ἀγαλματοποιὸς Ἡγίου, Πολύγνωτος [p. 115] δὲ ὁ ζωγράφος καὶ ὁ ἀδελφὸς ἄμφω τοῦ πατρὸς Ἀγλαοφῶντος, Πυθαγόρου δὲ Φερεκύδης λέγεται διδάσκαλος γενέσθαι, Πυθαγόρας δὲ Ἐμπεδοκλέους καὶ ἑτέρων, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων δὲ τῶν πλείστων ἔχομεν εἰπεῖν τοὺς διδασκάλους τῶν ἐνδόξων ἀνδρῶν, ὅτῳ ἕκαστος συγγενόμενος λόγου ἄξιος ἐγένετο δίχα γε Ἡρακλείτου τοῦ Ἐφεσίου καὶ Ἡσιόδου τοῦ Ἀσκραίου. ὁ μὲν γάρ φησιν ποιμαίνων ἐν τῷ Ἑλικῶνι παρὰ τῶν Μουσῶν λαβεῖν ἐν δάφνης ὄζῳ τὴν ποίησιν, ἵνα μὴ πράγματα ἔχοιμεν ζητοῦντες αὐτοῦ τὸν διδάσκαλον:
The Fifty-fifth Discourse: On Homer and Socrates
Interlocutor. Since you make it evident that on general grounds you are an admirer of Socrates and also that you are filled with wonder at the man as revealed in his words, you can tell me of which among the sages he was a pupil; just as, for example, Pheidias the sculptor was a pupil of Hegias, and Polygnotus the painter and his brother were both pupils of their father Aglaophon, and Pherecydes is said to have been a teacher of Pythagoras, and Pythagoras in turn a teacher of Empedocles and Sophocles. And indeed we are able to name the teachers of most other famous men — and to tell through association with whom each became noteworthy — with the exception of Heracleitus of Ephesus and Hesiod of Ascra. For, to spare us the trouble of seeking for his teacher, Hesiod says he received his poetic gift from the Muses in a branch of laurel as he was tending his flocks on Helicon,
Delphi Complete Works of Dio Chrysostom Page 334