[2] Ἡράκλειτος δὲ ἔτι γενναιότερον αὐτὸς ἐξευρεῖν τὴν τοῦ παντὸς φύσιν ὁποία τυγχάνει οὖσα, μηδενὸς διδάξαντος καὶ γενέσθαι παῤ αὑτοῦ σοφός. Ὁμήρου μὲν γάρ, ὥσπερ τὰ ἄλλα τὰ περὶ αὐτόν, καὶ τοῦτο ἄδηλον τοῖς Ἕλλησιν. ὁ δὲ Σωκράτης ὅτι μὲν παῖς ὢν ἐμάνθανε λιθοξόος τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς τέχνην ἀκηκόαμεν: τὸν δὲ τῆς σοφίας αὐτοῦ διδάσκαλον οὕτως ὠφελίμου καὶ καλῆς γενομένης
[2] while Heracleitus with even more graciousness says that he himself discovered what the nature of the universe really is without anybody’s teaching him, and that he became wise by his own efforts. As for Homer, this point, like everything else connected with him, is obscure to the Greeks. But while we have heard that Socrates as a boy studied the calling of his father, be so good as to tell us clearly who was his teacher in the wisdom which has proved so helpful and noble.
[3] σὺ ἡμῖν σαφῶς εἰπὲ καὶ μὴ φθονήσῃς. — Δ. Ἀλλὰ τοῦτό γε οἶμαι πολλοῖς εἶναι σαφές, ὅστις ἔμπειρος ἀμφοῖν τοῖν ἀνδροῖν, ὅτι Σωκράτης τό γε ἀληθὲς Ὁμήρου μαθητὴς γέγονεν, οὐχ ὥσπερ ἔνιοί φασιν Ἀρχελάου. — Καὶ πῶς οἷόν τε τὸν μήτε ξυγγενόμενον Ὁμήρῳ μήτε ἰδόντα πώποτε, ἀλλὰ τοσούτοις ἔτεσιν ὕστερον γενόμενον Ὁμήρου φάναι μαθητήν; — Δ. Τί δέ; ὅστις καθ̓ Όμηρον ἐγένετο, μηδὲν δὲ ἤκουσε τῶν Ὁμήρου ἐπῶν ἢ ἀκούων μηδενὶ προσέσχε τὸν νοῦν, ἔσθ̓ ὅπως φήσομεν ἐκεῖνον Ὁμήρου μαθητήν;
[3] Dio. Why, this is plain, I imagine, to many people, provided they are familiar with both men, namely, that Socrates is in truth a pupil of Homer, and not of Archelaüs, as some say.
Int. And how can it possibly be said that the man who neither met Homer nor ever saw him, but lived so many years later, was a pupil of Homer?
Dio. What of it? Supposing a man lived in Homer’s day but had heard none of the poetry of Homer, or, if he had heard, had given none of it his attention, shall we be able to say he was a pupil of Homer?
Int. By no means.
[4] — Οὐδαμῶς. — Δ. Οὔκουν ἄτοπον τὸν μήτε ξυγγενόμενον μήτε ἰδόντα, τῆς δὲ ποιήσεως ξυνέντα τῆς Ὁμήρου καὶ τῆς ὅλης διανοίας ἔμπειρον γενόμενον μαθητὴν Ὁμήρου λέγεσθαι: ἢ οὐδὲ ζηλωτὴν οὐδένα οὐδενὸς φήσεις τῶν μὴ συγγενομένων; — Ἔγωγε. — Δ. Εἴπερ οὖν ζηλωτής, καὶ μαθητὴς εἴη ἄν. ὁ γὰρ ζηλῶν τινα ὀρθῶς ἐπίσταται δήπου ἐκεῖνον ὁποῖος ἦν καὶ μιμούμενος τὰ ἔργα καὶ τοὺς λόγους ὡς οἷόν τε ἐπιχειρεῖ ὅμοιον αὑτὸν ἀποφαίνειν.
[4] Dio. Then it is not absurd that the man who neither met nor saw Homer and yet understood his poetry and became familiar with all his thought should be called a pupil of Homer; or will you go so far as to maintain that no one can be a zealous follower of anyone with whom he has never been associated?
Int. Not I.
Dio. Then, if a follower, he would also be a pupil. For whoever really follows any one surely knows what that person was like, and by imitating his acts and words he tries as best he can to make himself like him.
[5] ταὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο καὶ ὁ μαθητὴς ποιεῖν ἔοικε: μιμούμενος τὸν διδάσκαλον [p. 116] καὶ προσέχων ἀναλαμβάνει τὴν τέχνην. τὸ δὲ ὁρᾶν καὶ ξυνεῖναι οὐδέν ἐστι πρὸς τὸ μανθάνειν: πολλοὶ γὰρ καὶ ὁρῶσι τοὺς αὐλητὰς καὶ ξύνεισι καὶ ἀκούουσιν ὁσημέραι, καὶ οὐδ̓ ἂν ἐμφυσῆσαι τοῖς αὐλοῖς δύναιντο, οἳ ἂν μὴ ἐπὶ τέχνῃ μηδὲ προσέχοντες ξυνῶσιν. ἀλλ̓ εἴ γε δυσωπῇ μαθητὴν Ὁμήρου τὸν Σωκράτην καλεῖν, ζηλωτὴν
[5] But that is precisely, it seems, what the pupil does — by imitating his teacher and paying heed to him he tries to acquire his art. On the other hand, seeing people and associating with them has nothing to do with the process of learning. For instance, many persons not only see pipers but associate with and hear them every day, and yet they could not even blow on the pipes unless they associate with the pipers for professional ends and pay strict heed. However, if you shrink from calling Socrates a pupil of Homer, but would prefer to call him just a follower, it will make no difference to me.
[6] δὲ μόνον, οὐδέν μοι διοίσει. — Ἐμοὶ μὲν οὐχ ἧττον παράδοξον τοῦτο ἐκείνου δοκεῖ. Ὅμηρος μὲν γὰρ ποιητὴς γέγονεν οἷος οὐδεὶς ἄλλος: Σωκράτης δὲ φιλόσοφος. — Δ. Εἶεν: οὕτως μὲν οὐδὲ Ἀρχίλοχον εἴποις ἂν Ὁμήρου ζηλωτήν, ὅτι μὴ τῷ αὐτῷ μέτρῳ κέχρηται εἰς ὅλην τὴν ποίησιν, ἀλλ̓ ἑτέροις τὸ πλέον, οὐδὲ Στησίχορον,
[6] Int. Why, to my way of thinking, the one seems no less surprising than the other. For Homer has proved to be a poet without a peer, whereas Socrates is a philosopher.
Dio. Very well; on that principle you would not call even Archilochus a follower of Homer, because he has not used the same metre as Homer’s for all his poetry but has used any metres for the most part; nor would you call Stesichorus his follower either, because, while Homer composed epic poetry, Stesichorus was a melic poet.
[7] ὅτι ἐκεῖνος μὲν ἔπη ἐποίει, Στησίχορος δὲ μελοποιὸς ἦν. — Ναί: τοῦτό γε ἅπαντές φασιν οἱ Ἕλληνες, Στησίχορον Ὁμήρου ζηλωτὴν γενέσθαι καὶ σφόδρα γε ἐοικέναι κατὰ τὴν ποίησιν. Σωκράτης δὲ κατὰ τί σοι δοκεῖ Ὁμήρῳ ἐοικέναι; — Δ. Τὸ μὲν πρῶτον καὶ μέγιστον κατὰ τὸ ἦθος. οὐδέτερος γὰρ αὐτοῖν ἀλαζὼν ἦν οὐδὲ ἀναιδής, ὥσπερ οἱ ἀμαθέστατοι τῶν σοφιστῶν. Ὅμηρος μὲν γὰρ οὐδὲ ὁπόθεν ἦν εἰπεῖν ἠξίωσεν οὐδὲ ὧντινων γονέων οὐδὲ ὅστις αὐτὸς ἐκαλεῖτο. ἀλλὰ ὅσον ἐπ̓ ἐκείνῳ καὶ τὸ ὄνομα ἠγνοοῦμεν ἂν
[7] Int. Yes I would; all the Greeks agree on this, that Stesichorus was a follower of Homer, and indeed is very like him in his poetic art. But wherein does Socrates seem to you to resemble Homer?
Dio. First and foremost, he resembles him in his character; for neither of the two was boastful or brazen, as the most ignorant of the sophists are. For instance, Homer did not even deign to tell whence he came, or who were his parents, or what he himself was called. On the contrary, so far as he was concerned we should not even know the name of the man who wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey.
[8] τοῦ γράψαντος τὴν Ἰλιάδα καὶ τὴν Ὀδύσσειαν. Σωκράτης δὲ τὴν μὲν πατρίδα οὐχ οἷός τ̓ ἦν ἀποκρύψασθαι διὰ τὸ μέγεθος καὶ τὸ σφόδρα ἐνδόξους εἶναι τὰς Ἀθήνας καὶ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἄρχειν κατ̓ ἐκεῖνον τὸν χρόνον: οὐδὲν δὲ πώποτε εἶπεν ὑπὲρ αὑτοῦ μέγα οὐδὲ προσεποιεῖτο σοφίαν οὐδεμίαν, καίτοι �
�οῦ Ἀπόλλωνος χρήσαντος ὡς εἴη σοφώτατος Ἑλλήνων καὶ βαρβάρων. τελευταῖον δὲ οὐδὲ τοὺς λόγους αὐτὸς κατέλιπε γράψας, καὶ ταύτῃ γε ὑπερέβαλε τὸν Ὅμηρον. ὥσπερ γὰρ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ἐκείνου παῤ ἑτέρων ἀκούοντες ἴσμεν, οὕτω καὶ τοὺς λόγους τοὺς Σωκράτους ἄλλων καταλιπόντων. οὕτως ἄγαν κεκολασμένω ἤστην καὶ ἐσωφρονείτην ἄμφω τὼ ἄνδρε.
[8] As for Socrates, while he could not make a secret of his fatherland because of its greatness and because Athens was exceedingly famous and dominated the Greeks at that period, yet he never said anything boastful about himself nor laid claim to any wisdom, and yet Apollo had solemnly declared that he was wisest among Greeks and barbarians. And finally, Socrates did not even put his words into writing and himself bequeath them to posterity, and in this he outdid Homer. For just as we know the name of Homer by hearing it from others, so too we know the words of Socrates because others have left them to us. Thus both were exceedingly self-restrained and modest.
[9] ἔπειτα ὑπερεῖδον κτήσεως χρημάτων ὁμοίως Σωκράτης τε καὶ Ὅμηρος. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ὑπὲρ τῶν αὐτῶν ἐσπουδαζέτην καὶ ἐλεγέτην, ὁ μὲν διὰ τῆς ποιήσεως, ὁ δὲ καταλογάδην: περὶ ἀρετῆς ἀνθρώπων καὶ κακίας καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτημάτων καὶ κατορθωμάτων καὶ περὶ [p. 117] ἀληθείας καὶ ἀπάτης καὶ ὅπως δοξάζουσιν οἱ πολλοὶ καὶ ὅπως ἐπίστανται οἱ φρόνιμοι. καὶ μὴν εἰκάσαι καὶ παραβαλεῖν ἱκανώτατοι ἦσαν. — Τοῦτο μὲν θαυμαστόν, εἰ ταῖς Ὁμήρου παραβολαῖς πυρὸς καὶ ἀνέμων καὶ θαλάττης καὶ ἀετῶν καὶ ταύρων καὶ λεόντων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων, οἷς ἐκόσμησε τὴν ποίησιν Ὅμηρος, σὺ παραβαλεῖν
[9] Again, both Socrates and Homer alike scorned the acquisition of wealth. Besides, they both were devoted to the same ends and spoke about the same things, the one through the medium of his verse, the other in prose — human virtue and vice, actions wrong and actions right, truth and deceit, and how the masses have only opinions, while the wise have true knowledge.
Furthermore, they were most effective at making similes and comparisons.
Int. This is indeed surprising if with Homer’s comparisons of fire and winds and sea and eagles and bulls and lions and so forth, figures with which he adorned his poetry, you shall see fit to compare the potters and cobblers of Socrates.
[10] ἀξιώσεις τοὺς Σωκράτους κεραμέας καὶ τοὺς σκυτοτόμους. — Δ. Εἴπερ γε, ὦ μακάριε, καὶ τὴν Ἀρχιλόχου ἀλώπεκα τοῖς λέουσι καὶ ταῖς παρδάλεσι παραβάλλομεν καὶ οὐδὲν ἢ μὴ πολὺ ἀποδεῖν φαμεν. ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἴσως καὶ τῶν Ὁμήρου τὰ τοιαῦτα ἀποδοκιμάζεις, ὅπου μέμνηται ψαρῶν ἢ κολοιῶν ἢ ἀκρίδων ἢ δαλοῦ ἢ τέφρας ἢ κυάμων τε καὶ ἐρεβίνθων ἢ λικμῶντας ἀνθρώπους πεποίηκεν, ἀλλὰ ταῦτά
[10] Dio. I shall, my dear fellow, since indeed we compare the fox of Archilochus with the lions and leopards of Homer and declare it to be not at all, or not much, inferior. However, perhaps you disapprove also of such Homeric similes as those in which he refers to starlings or daws or locusts or a firebrand or ashes or beans and chickpeas, or the one in which he has depicted men winnowing —
[11] σοι δοκεῖ τὰ φαυλότατα εἶναι τῶν Ὁμήρου: μόνους δὲ θαυμάζεις τοὺς λέοντας καὶ τοὺς ἀετοὺς καὶ τὰς Σκύλλας καὶ τοὺς Κύκλωπας, οἷς ἐκεῖνος ἐκήλει τοὺς ἀναισθήτους, ὥσπερ αἱ τίτθαι τὰ παιδία διηγούμεναι τὴν Λάμιαν. καὶ μὴν ὥσπερ Ὅμηρος διά τε μύθων καὶ ἱστορίας ἐπεχείρησε τοὺς ἀνθρώπους παιδεύειν, σφόδρα ἐργώδεις ὄντας παιδευθῆναι, καὶ Σωκράτης πολλάκις ἐχρῆτο τῷ τοιούτῳ, ποτὲ μὲν σπουδάζειν ὁμολογῶν, ποτὲ δὲ παίζειν προσποιούμενος, τούτου ἕνεκεν ἀνθρώπους ὠφέλει: ἴσως δὲ προσέκρουσε
[11] perhaps these seem to they to be the most inferior portions of Homer’s work, while you admire only his lions and eagles and Scyllas and Cyclopes, with which he was wont to beguile stupid people, just as nurses beguile children with tales of the Lamia. Indeed, just as Homer through myths and history undertook to instruct human beings, who are very troublesome to instruct, so also Socrates often used this sort of device, sometimes admitting that he was in earnest and sometimes pretending to be joking, with the aim of benefiting mankind — though in so doing he perhaps came into conflict with mythologists and historians.
[12] τοῖς μυθολόγοις καὶ τοῖς συγγραφεῦσιν. οὐ τοίνυν οὐδὲ τοὺς περὶ Γοργίαν ἢ Πῶλον ἢ Θρασύμαχον ἢ Πρόδικον ἢ Μένωνα ἢ Εὐθύφρονα ἢ Ἄνυτον ἢ Ἀλκιβιάδην ἢ Λάχητα μάτην ἐποίει λέγοντας, ἐξὸν ἀφελεῖν τὰ ὀνόματα: ἀλλὰ ᾔδει τούτῳ καὶ μάλιστα ὀνήσων τοὺς ἀκούοντας, εἴ πως ξυνεῖν: ἀπὸ γὰρ τῶν λόγων τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τοὺς λόγους ξυνορᾶν οὐ ῥᾴδιον ἄλλοις ἢ τοῖς φιλοσόφοις καὶ τοῖς πεπαιδευμένοις. οἱ δὲ πολλοὶ μάτην οἴονται τὰ τοιαῦτα λέγεσθαι καὶ ὄχλον ἄλλως καὶ
[12] Again, it was not without conscious purpose that he represented Gorgias or Polus or Thrasymachus or Prodicus or Meno or Euthyphro or Anytus or Alcibiades or Laches as speaking, when he might have omitted their names; on the contrary, he knew that by this device most of all he would benefit his hearers, if perchance they grasped the point; for to comprehend human beings from their words, or their words from human beings, is not an easy task for any but philosophers and educated persons. On the other hand, most men suppose that such items are purposeless, and they regard them as mere vexation and nonsense.
[13] φλυαρίαν ἡγοῦνται. Σωκράτης δὲ ἐνόμιζεν, ὁσάκις μὲν ἀλαζόνα ἄνθρωπον εἰσάγει, περὶ ἀλαζονείας λέγειν: ὁπότε δὲ ἀναίσχυντον καὶ βδελυρόν, περὶ ἀναιδείας καὶ βδελυρίας: ὁπότε δὲ ἀγνώμονα [p. 118] καὶ ὀργίλον, ἀγγωμοσύνης καὶ ὀργῆς ἀποτρέπειν. καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὁμοίως τὰ πάθη καὶ τὰ νοσήματα ἐπ̓ αὐτῶν τῶν ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἐχομένων τοῖς πάθεσιν ἢ τοῖς νοσήμασι σαφέστερον ἐδείκνυεν
[13] But Socrates held that, every time he introduces a boastful man, he is speaking of boastfulness; every time he introduces a shameless, loathsome man, he is speaking of shamelessness and loathsomeness; every time he introduces an unreasonable, irascible man, he is turning his hearers against unreason and anger. Moreover, in all other cases similarly he revealed the true nature of the passions and maladies of men in the persons of the very ones who were afflicted by the passions or the maladies more distinctly than if he were using the words by themselves.
[14] ὁποῖά ἐστιν ἢ εἰ τοὺς λόγους ψιλοὺς ἔλεγε. δοκε�
�� δέ μοι καὶ τοῦτο παῤ Ὁμήρου λαβεῖν. καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνος, ὅταν μὲν διηγῆται περὶ Δόλωνος, ὅπως μὲν ἐπεθύμησε τῶν ἵππων τῶν Ἀχιλλέως, ὅπως δὲ τοὺς πολεμίους ἀποφεύγειν δυνάμενος ἔστη τοῦ δόρατος ἐγγὺς παγέντος καὶ οὐδὲν αὐτὸν ὤνησε τὸ τάχος, ὅπως δὲ ἐβάμβαινεν ὑπὸ τοῦ δέους καὶ συνεκρότει τοὺς ὀδόντας, ὅπως δὲ ἔλεγε τοῖς πολεμίοις, οὐ μόνον εἴ τι ἐρωτῷεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑπὲρ ὧν μηδεὶς ἐπυνθάνετο ῾καὶ γὰρ τοὺς ἵππους ἐμήνυσε τοὺς Θρᾳκικοὺς καὶ τὸν Ῥῆσον, ὃν οὐδεὶς ᾔδει: ἀφιγμένον̓: ταῦτα δὲ λέγων οὕτω σφόδρα ἐναργῶς οὐ περὶ δειλίας ὑμῖν καὶ φιλοδοξίας δοκεῖ διαλέγεσθαι;
[14] But it appears to me that he took this too from Homer. For example, when Homer tells about Dolon, how he conceived a longing for the horses of Achilles, and how, when he might have fled from the enemy, he halted with his lance planted close beside him and obtained no benefit from his fleetness, and how his teeth chattered and struck together from terror, and how he talked to the enemy, not only when they asked him a question, but even on topics about which no one was inquiring — for instance, he gave information about the Thracian horses and about Rhesus, of whose arrival no one knew — by telling all this so very plainly does Homer not seem to you to be discoursing on cowardice and love of notoriety?
Delphi Complete Works of Dio Chrysostom Page 335